# Space Thread!



## cannabineer (Nov 12, 2011)

The USA currently has no manned spacecraft capable of launching from/returning to the Earth's surface! Can you believe it?
What do you imagine it will take to return to at least a manned (crewed, if you're feeling extra pc) vehicle to orbit?
-technology
-funding
-impetus or purpose

I mean ... I am a hhuuggee space geek and would love to see the USA, either government or a private enterprise, build and operate an orbit-capable spacecraft. However it seems to be very expensive, and the technical challenge has not become noticably easier since the pioneer days of the 1960s. Is this something we can do? is this something we should do? How do you envision a practical, cost-effective orbital travel technology?
cn


----------



## dababydroman (Nov 12, 2011)

isnt there a space station?


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 12, 2011)

Yes, but it's stuck on orbit. We gotta use Vladimir's Taxi Service!! cn


----------



## darkdestruction420 (Nov 12, 2011)

really riight now i think its going to be a while. I love this stuff too but honestly i dont see much point in it in the short term as what point is there to send people (that can die, need to sleep and eat,) into space when robots can fill that role? manned space exploration is hard to justify cost wise politically imo. eventually we will need to leave the earth possibley much sooner than expected. (hopefully we have that technology, which IS a good reason to further our technology but its hard to convince people of that now)


----------



## darkdestruction420 (Nov 12, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> isnt there a space station?


yes, but we have no current way to get their other than hitch a ride from russia. right now they are having resupplying issues.


----------



## Grumpy' (Nov 12, 2011)

The last bit of info I read on this is that we chose to retire the shuttle program due to costs. It's said to be cheaper to "taxi" our way to ISS. I believe I also read that te funds that were going to the shuttle program were being diverted towards a better system geared to going further out, and. It just low to moderate orbit.


----------



## dam612 (Nov 13, 2011)

well once we stop giving billions in foreign aid to countries who dont need/deserve it then maybe we can fund somethings that could benefit mankind


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 13, 2011)

dam612 said:


> well once we stop giving billions in foreign aid to countries who dont need/deserve it then maybe we can fund somethings that could benefit mankind


Remember the "peace dividend" of the early 90s? The hundreds of billions supposedly freed up by the end of the cold war? They didn't change anything. There will NEVER be enough money for everything; it'll always be about priorities. 
While the idea of finding money by saving it from some other expense makes sense to reasonable folk, reasonable folk do not run natioanl budgets. So funding something big like spaceflight will only happen where a large enough organization applies long-term will. Looking at USA space projects of the last 30 years, maintaining that will for more than one or two Presidential terms (whether or not the President deserved credit/blame) hasn't been workable.

The bigger question is: what sort of work in the manned spaceflight category/program WILL bring a benefit? Transferring people to and from orbit is fiendishly involved and expensive. Building another rocket to take people there is expensive and no longer has that pioneering feel about it. SpaceX, a USA corporation that is up front in the "race" to build a privately developed and operated orbital capacity, is testing its Falcon 9/Dragon spacecraft and booster, and that platform's differences from, oh, Mercury/Atlas are nothing much with the exception of avionics.
Take a technology whose benefit would be undeniable - controlled fusion for electrical power. We're not spending much on that at all, even as oil becomes steadily scarcer (more expensive). Unless coal manages to shed most of its political and climatic "bad idea" status, we'll be needing fusion quite soon, because although i love their fuzzy little hearts, the "conserve; use green power" crowd don't have the answer for an industrial, energy-intensive economy. 
The mandate for manned spaceflight isn't as obvious as that for fusion. 

Ideally we'll need a different, better, cheaper technology than the chemical rocket to get to orbit, and especially to support dreams/ambitions of practically traveling beyond Earth's neighborhood. But what that technology might be, I have no idea. cn


----------



## RyanTheRhino (Nov 13, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> The USA currently has no manned spacecraft capable of launching from/returning to the Earth's surface! Can you believe it?
> What do you imagine it will take to return to at least a manned (crewed, if you're feeling extra pc) vehicle to orbit?
> -technology
> -funding
> ...


they have these... just privately own. 

*The outside fuselages take off from earth and travel to the highest air density that can still be compressed by a jet engine. They then launch the central space ship that has a rocket that is able to reach space. 
*


----------



## dababydroman (Nov 13, 2011)

that thing looks dangerous


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 13, 2011)

Ok, let me change the circumstances on you......... We have a space ship. Now what? Where do you *go*? Nowhere! Mars in 6 months? Another star in 400 years?


----------



## RyanTheRhino (Nov 13, 2011)

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2009/12/virgin-galactic-ready-to-unveil-spaceshiptwo/


here is info about the space ship i posted


----------



## dam612 (Nov 13, 2011)

dababydroman said:


> that thing looks dangerous


i kinda think this way looks more dangerous


----------



## tyler.durden (Nov 13, 2011)

I think that the missions to repair the Hubble telescope (I think the last was 2009?) were very worthy endeavors so that we may better understand our universe. But that's the current question, what major benefit is there for consistently going into space at this point? We do need to keep working on a way to eventually leave this planet. What are the restrictions for the private sector to go into space? I bet it's a nightmare of regulations and restrictions, but I really don't know. I think that at this point it would be up to the private sector to offer orbit runs for entertainment, but so few would be able to afford such a thing. I think it's going to be a profit motive that drives further space exploration for the foreseeable future...


----------



## dababydroman (Nov 13, 2011)

i doubt america cars about finding a way to leave the planet. america wont even exist by the time we need to.


----------



## Dizzle Frost (Nov 13, 2011)

dam612 said:


> i kinda think this way looks more dangerous
> View attachment 1886428


 haha id rather go ou tin a blaze of glory with those bigass rockets...than die in a suped up Sesna lol


----------



## darkdestruction420 (Nov 13, 2011)

I cant for jwst to finally go up. It's been pushed back to like 2019 or something last i heard. this site here is one i visit alot www.physorg.com good place but watch out for oliver k manuel.


----------



## RyanTheRhino (Nov 13, 2011)

darkdestruction420 said:


> I cant for jwst to finally go up. It's been pushed back to like 2019 or something last i heard. this site here is one i visit alot www.physorg.com good place but watch out for oliver k manuel.


why whats his background


----------



## darkdestruction420 (Nov 13, 2011)

He spams nonsense theories about an imaginary force called neutron repulsion, their is a pulsar neutron star in the sun, black holes dont exist because of neutron repulsion, yet its also behind the expansion of the universe....which would make ANYTHING existing impossible. neutron repulsion would stop atoms from forming. He also goes on rants about big brother and al gore and all governments being in on a huge global warming conspiracy to prevent nuclear war. He's also got a very dark past. i am not personally attacking him by sharing this, as i am a mod and even though he deserves it ive got to hold myself to the highest standards. 
http://mominer.mst.edu/2006/08/30/dr-oliver-manuel-arrested-for-multiple-counts-of-rape-and-sodomy-of-his-children/
http://www.mshp.dps.mo.gov/CJ38/OffenderDetails?page=0&column=name&id=1097755&lastName=Manuel&suffix=&firstName=Oliver&middleName=K

All but 1 charge of attempted sodomy was dropped due to statute of limitations. He was most certainly guilty of all of it and more.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 13, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> Ok, let me change the circumstances on you......... We have a space ship. Now what? Where do you *go*? Nowhere! Mars in 6 months? Another star in 400 years?


 With a better spaceship ... the Jovian system. Europa is rather worth exploring ... cn


----------



## darkdestruction420 (Nov 13, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> With a better spaceship ... the Jovian system. Europa is rather worth exploring ... cn


granted, but why send people?


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 13, 2011)

darkdestruction420 said:


> granted, but why send people?


Imagine running an Apollo program with just remotes. Having people on the ground is an enormous value multiplier in terms of exploration/discovery.
I have nothing in practice against robotic exploration ... it's better to get half the martian loaf than none, for example ... but robots at the current and reasonably foreseeable levels of capability can't do much. 

Imo the future belongs to an integrated immediate/remote exploration program. cn


----------



## darkdestruction420 (Nov 13, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Imagine running an Apollo program with just remotes. Having people on the ground is an enormous value multiplier in terms of exploration/discovery.
> I have nothing in practice against robotic exploration ... it's better to get half the martian loaf than none, for example ... but robots at the current and reasonably foreseeable levels of capability can't do much.
> 
> Imo the future belongs to an integrated immediate/remote exploration program. cn


Our technology for exploring other worlds is evolving quickly and many advances have been made and it is a hot area of active study/research that continues to speed ahead. In another 20 years i doubt their will be just about anything they couldnt do.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 14, 2011)

darkdestruction420 said:


> Our technology for exploring other worlds is evolving quickly and many advances have been made and it is a hot area of active study/research that continues to speed ahead. In another 20 years i doubt their will be just about anything they couldnt do.


I've recently read the books by two mars project scientisis, one for Mars Pathfinder (the little Sojourner rover), one for the Mars Exploration Rovers (Spirit and Opportunity). I was impressed by how hard and complex it was to build/send machines that took months to do what an onsite smart operator cpould have done in minutes. 
I'm not belittling these rovers, which were at the state of the art. (We're building a bigger, more capable rover now ... the Mars Scienvce Laboratory rover "Curiosity", the size and weight of a car.) But robotics have a long way to go imo. My estimate to match onsite human capabilities is closer to 200 years. cn


----------



## darkdestruction420 (Nov 14, 2011)

well, i think you've got a point. we need to keep advancing at a steady rate to reach it in 20 yrs and with the way things are going now and nasa's current budget issues and frequent going way way over budget on projects our progress could slow dramatically.(i think 200yrs is still a pretty high estimate taking that into account however) I mean sure their is still russia and the eu and probably china to keep going forward but they all seem to be struggling lately especially russia who officially "lost" their 2nd probe this year. this one heading for a martian moon and one for mars itself earlier this year, which was considered devastating to them. that and they lost that resupply iss unmanned craft. thats who we are relying on getting us into space........


----------



## Jack Harer (Nov 14, 2011)

Richard Branson and the Virgin Group won the C.A.T.S. prize (Cheap Access to Space) and then started on the Virgin Galactic:

http://www.virgin.com/travel/news/video-inside-virgin-galactic-spaceship

Privatization of space is here!!

Also, have you ever launched the Estes rocket kits when you were a kid? Check THIS shit out!!! I was really active in HPR for several years, and still launch from time to time. I was actually on the Discovery Ch. (In the early LDRS series)

www.rocketryonline.com
www.tripoli.org


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 14, 2011)

In re privatization of space ...
I don't like the Scaled Composites ships at all. Spaceship One was a directed cherrypicking project to claim the X-prize. its two key technologies - the hybrid rocket and the "shuttlecock" reentry-stabilization mode, are not scalable to orbit. Spaceship Two relies on the same tech and can only be used as a premium roller-coaster ride. same for Virgin Galactic. 
Maybe I this marks me as a curmudgeon, but "real" space tourism involves ORBIT. 
SSTO (single stage to orbit) technologies have clear merit in theory, but nobody's ever built one. Our own Shuttle was originally going to be SSTO, but budget limits plus a hard minimum payload requirement forced a compromise design that proved hideously pricy to operate. I was super stoked in the early 90s when VentureStar was selected for development ... then proportionately bummed when it was chopped. The Japanese (Kanko Maru) had a SSTO project going for a while, but it too got the "ono" (axe). 
The British Skylon looks way cool, not least because it uses an air-breathing scramjet that reduces onboard oxidizer load, but the engines are still vaporware. 
The most advanced and potentially useful private space hardware is the very traditional Falcon 9/Dragon pairing made by SpaceX. 
cn


----------



## Rj41 (Nov 14, 2011)

I read somewhere that there was a 'new and improved' space shuttle in the works. In Popular Science maybe? I don't remember.

Here's something that has me believing we're going back to the moon sometime soon (or maybe Mars?):
http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/SEV.html

http://education.jsc.nasa.gov/explorers/p5.html


----------



## Doer (Nov 14, 2011)

No moon, if Obama is re-elected. Not against Obama, like how he pops the bad guys, etc, but I think we have secret deal w/China to allow them a breather and become a spacefaring nation. Clinton gave them precision guidance technology to counter
the threat from India, you'll remember. I think the deal is to privatize the moon's resources since that's all that's allowed by current treaty.

The moon is cover in deuterium, the key to non-neutron flux fusion. Neutron flux is
so ablative, it's very hard on it's containment and represent a hard stop on that line
of research so far. The moon is abundant in Helium-3 another good fusion candidate.
Material can be refined and launched from long fast conver belts into earth orbit.
A whole new gang of robber barons. But, at least the nations won't fight, hopefully.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 14, 2011)

Doer said:


> No moon, if Obama is re-elected. Not against Obama, like how he pops the bad guys, etc, but I think we have secret deal w/China to allow them a breather and become a spacefaring nation. Clinton gave them precision guidance technology to counter
> the threat from India, you'll remember. I think the deal is to privatize the moon's resources since that's all that's allowed by current treaty.
> 
> The moon is cover in deuterium, the key to non-neutron flux fusion. Neutron flux is
> ...


We have plenty of deuterium here, dirtside, for cheap.
Helium-3 otoh is a viable space resource once we get fusion facilities hot enough to do the <sup>2</sup>H, <sup>3</sup> He reaction. So far the only source of helium-3 is from decay of tritium stocks ... cn

<edit> I can't do superscripts!! Why the  not!?


----------



## mindphuk (Nov 14, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> We have plenty of deuterium here, dirtside, for cheap.
> Helium-3 otoh is a viable space resource once we get fusion facilities hot enough to do the <sup>2</sup>H, <sup>3</sup> He reaction. So far the only source of helium-3 is from decay of tritium stocks ... cn
> 
> <edit> I can't do superscripts!! Why the  not!?


Superscript one	Alt + 0185 
Superscript two	Alt + 253 Alt + 0178
Superscript three Alt + 0179
Superscript lowercase n	Alt + 252 Alt + 8319

S¹
s²
s³
s&#8319;


----------



## Doer (Nov 14, 2011)

Well, then why are we not investing in *deuterium fusion? I'm mixed up.
*


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 14, 2011)

Because the D,D reaction produces hot neutrons ... cn

test ²H
Thanks mindphuk!! cn

<edit> The D,D fuel cycle has a tritium-formation intermediate step ...
²H + ²H&#8594; ³H+ ¹H [or] &#8594; ³He+ n
so it's really a D,T fuel cycle with an extra step. (The second arrow reaction has about the same probability as the first arrowed reaction.) You get neutrons of 2.45MeV from the ³He formation step, and then the familiar toasty 14.1-MeV neutron from burning tritium with deuterium. cn


----------



## Doer (Nov 15, 2011)

Thanks, is it the He3, then, that avoids the hot neutron problem? I thought there was something about lunar resources that help there.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 15, 2011)

The deuterium/ ³He reaction is "aneutronic" ... no pesky neutrons. 
Apollo 17 brought back some lunar soil that contained a fair bit of helium-3 embedded in glassy beads. This leads most to believe that the regolith can be mined for practical amounts of helium-3.
The problem is that the deuterium-helium reaction runs hot - hotter than D,D and definitely hotter than D,T. We need to demontrate getting and keeping the cooler reactions ignited before we can get all excited about helium-3 as an industrial-scale energy source. cn


----------



## ^NoR*[email protected] (Nov 15, 2011)

awsome thread cn, 

i think they have relized that its too expensive to send ppl out there, unless acheap disposable robot cant do the job.

we just need to find a new more efficient way to travel, cuz rockets is so 1900's lol and once that is found, we need not waste our time with our solar system, or even the closest ones. i believe the next trips up and out are going to carry way more people for a much longer term, if at all. imo we are running out of reasons to come back at all.


----------



## Doer (Nov 15, 2011)

Thanks for the explain! 

For luna transportation, won't a simple Holzman orbit take us there and back in 30 days
or so? It's been proposed for Mars, an 18 month orbit.

If there is any place else, it might be found in exo-planet research. Then a one way
trip, indeed.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 15, 2011)

Norcal, I imagine that once humanity has a way to travel among planets and even stars ... we'll stop being interested in planets except as nature preserves. All the raw materials we need for living and making stuff are available in the asteroid and Kuiper belts! No need, none, zip-a-rino, to climb down into the gravitational "holes" ... except maybe to go joyriding in the "game preserves". cn


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 15, 2011)

You would probably launch each payload from a small rocket and slowly let it glide back to a receiver on Earth to be transported down somehow............ You wouldnt put it in a ship and turn on the engine, that'd be a lot of fuel for a little helium!


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 15, 2011)

researchkitty said:


> You would probably launch each payload from a small rocket and slowly let it glide back to a receiver on Earth to be transported down somehow............ You wouldnt put it in a ship and turn on the engine, that'd be a lot of fuel for a little helium!


From the lunar surface, a linear accelerator makes good sense ... lotsa solar power, and no reaction mass. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 15, 2011)

Doer said:


> Thanks for the explain!
> 
> For luna transportation, won't a simple Holzman orbit take us there and back in 30 days
> or so? It's been proposed for Mars, an 18 month orbit.
> ...


Apollo followed a Hohmann orbit between LEO and LLO (low lunar orbit). That took three days coming and the same amount going. It's the most efficient transfer orbit.
A Hohmann trajectory from Earth to Mars takes nine months indeed. Serious crewed exploration of the solar system will benefit mightily from a drive with an abundance of delta V, so that we needn't be confined to Hohmann orbits and their years of coasting. Such a drive exists ... but there is a pollution issue. It's called Orion - not the recent "Apollo on steroids", but a design from the 60s that uses nukes as a pulsed reaction mass. Isp in the tens of thousands ... Saturn and return in a year!! cn

<edit> I recommend the science fiction novel "Footfall" by Niven and Pournelle. Asteroid impacts, alien invasion ... an Orion-type warship ... plucky monkeys might yet prevail ...


----------



## Doer (Nov 15, 2011)

Yep, read all the sci-fi. Integral Trees, I think is my favorite, if I have to choose, which I don't. 

I believe we need to think of space as an origami problem. How to
fold the surface? 

Oh, another favorite. Red Mars.


----------



## Doer (Nov 15, 2011)

What exactly is the problem with tethers in space? Hasn't worked so far and
we seemed to have stopped trying for the time being.

It would buy us so much, elevators, propulsion, power, catapults to the moon....


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 15, 2011)

Doer said:


> What exactly is the problem with tethers in space? Hasn't worked so far and
> we seemed to have stopped trying for the time being.
> 
> It would buy us so much, elevators, propulsion, power, catapults to the moon....


Two basic problems, Doer.
1) Take the classic Beanstalk/space elevator. We have NO materials with enough tensile strength, and no prospects for making them.
2) Even if a Beanstalk were put into place by an amused deity ... we'd still have the problem of powering and controlling the traffic of the trolley-type vehicles going up and down. I don't have a ref handy, but someone put out a request for design of a beanstalk rider. Didn't get any useful ideas back. cn


----------



## Mr Farmer (Nov 15, 2011)

http://www.virgingalactic.com/ can almost get you into orbit but not quite. i believe they only go suborbital.


----------



## Doer (Nov 15, 2011)

I don't know if the company stayed in business. Space Elevator, Inc? IAC, they were
starting with carbon nano-tubes. 

No, earth tethered is a special problem. I mean space tethers. Seems you can't
un-reel a line more than about 100 feet. It's a micro-gravity problem of some kind.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 15, 2011)

Doer said:


> I don't know if the company stayed in business. Space Elevator, Inc? IAC, they were
> starting with carbon nano-tubes.
> 
> No, earth tethered is a special problem. I mean space tethers. Seems you can't
> un-reel a line more than about 100 feet. It's a micro-gravity problem of some kind.


The unreeling problem is "fixable" by a bit of research imo. In LEO there should be enough tidal force to hiold one straight Didn't the Italians andor the japanese try this, but the reel jammed? I think that was a local problem, not something systematically screwed. In complete microgravity, just impart a bit of spin ... it'll unreel straight and true. 
Tethers in space could ultimately be very useful "momentum banks" for transferring payloads between orbits. But in the meantime, achieving orbit from earth's surface remains the ouchie. cn


----------



## Doer (Nov 16, 2011)

You think you could even have a little motor on the end to provide some friction for
the reel. I don't know if that was the problem. I saw a picture and the snarl on
the reel certainly looked like a mico-grav problem. Not seen that on earth, though
snarled winchs are not unfamilar. There is one in my grow right now. And other
snarling wench in the house. (woops, outloud?) 

Not earth tethered, but perhaps the same material problem is an LEO pinwheel.
It's drags along for a few miles on the earth in some number of places.
Low side to low is earth transport. Low to high is obital trajectories. High
to low is earth delivery.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 16, 2011)

Doer said:


> You think you could even have a little motor on the end to provide some friction for
> the reel. I don't know if that was the problem. I saw a picture and the snarl on
> the reel certainly looked like a mico-grav problem. Not seen that on earth, though
> snarled winchs are not unfamilar. There is one in my grow right now. And other
> ...


Don't tangle with her ... cn


----------



## Doer (Nov 16, 2011)

tut, tut...cartoon mining is a very low form of debate.  I love it!


----------



## Doer (Nov 16, 2011)

Huh? A Space Fountain. Was unaware of this tech. Solves propelling, but not the material problem?



And another thing...





Sky Hooks and Rotavators


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 16, 2011)

Unfortunately space fountains etc. are not tech ... they're pipe dreams. cn


----------



## RollMoniter (Nov 16, 2011)

Would ya look at that!


----------



## Doer (Nov 16, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Unfortunately space fountains etc. are not tech ... they're pipe dreams. cn


A pun, I get it. 100 mile vacuum pipe dream. Yeah, not tech, indeed. I'd like to see a working model that could
hold itself off the table. Then it'd be tech.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 16, 2011)

Doer said:


> A pun, I get it. 100 mile vacuum pipe dream. Yeah, not tech, indeed. I'd like to see a working model that could
> hold itself off the table. Then it'd be tech.


 Only if it scales! cn


----------



## Doer (Nov 16, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Only if it scales! cn


The big toy mfgs would be very interest, I bet.


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 16, 2011)

Toy mfrs? Not following. I reserve "technology" for that which has been proven at a working scale. There were some folks who were working on a laser-pumped air rocket, for example. They built a small model that could go a few hundred feet. But since they never progressed to something beyond a <cough!> toy, I don't call that tech, but a principle demo. 
We had a nuclear-thermal rocket demonstrator in the 60s, but never took it to the point where there was a field-ready unit. So ... no tech, quoth the 'neer. cn


----------



## RyanTheRhino (Nov 16, 2011)

[video=youtube;cmHamp0IIyE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cmHamp0IIyE[/video]


----------



## cannabineer (Nov 16, 2011)

Very cool vid, Ryan!
I went into immediate nerd mode and estimated their acceleration relative to the station at two milligee (two cm/s²). I then found a link that stated that the actual acceleration was 1.6 milligee ... close enough! ~grin~
I looked up the station's mass, 450 tonnes, and finally figured that the rocket was producing 71000 newtons (about 15900 pounds) of thrust. It fired for about 114 seconds, imparting a delta vee of 1.8 meters per second to the entire structure.
The rocket was most likely the orbital maneuvering unit aboard a Progress module, essentially a stripped Soyuz used as a supply mule. Figuring an Isp (specific impulse, a measure of how efficiently a rocket uses its fuel) of 310 seconds, typical for hypergolics in a vacuum, the Progress consumed about 2.6 tonnes of propellant for this boost. 
I wonder if they performed an antipodal circularization burn ... 
cn


----------



## silasraven (Nov 17, 2011)

http://whatsnext.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/16/a-look-at-the-future-of-science-2021/?hpt=hp_bn9


----------



## silasraven (Nov 17, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Very cool vid, Ryan!
> I went into immediate nerd mode and estimated their acceleration relative to the station at two milligee (two cm/s²). I then found a link that stated that the actual acceleration was 1.6 milligee ... close enough! ~grin~
> I looked up the station's mass, 450 tonnes, and finally figured that the rocket was producing 71000 newtons (about 15900 pounds) of thrust. It fired for about 114 seconds, imparting a delta vee of 1.8 meters per second to the entire structure.
> The rocket was most likely the orbital maneuvering unit aboard a Progress module, essentially a stripped Soyuz used as a supply mule. Figuring an Isp (specific impulse, a measure of how efficiently a rocket uses its fuel) of 310 seconds, typical for hypergolics in a vacuum, the Progress consumed about 2.6 tonnes of propellant for this boost.
> ...


 dude that was intriguing. they were having way to much fun with that.


----------



## Doer (Nov 17, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Toy mfrs? Not following. I reserve "technology" for that which has been proven at a working scale. There were some folks who were working on a laser-pumped air rocket, for example. They built a small model that could go a few hundred feet. But since they never progressed to something beyond a <cough!> toy, I don't call that tech, but a principle demo.
> We had a nuclear-thermal rocket demonstrator in the 60s, but never took it to the point where there was a field-ready unit. So ... no tech, quoth the 'neer. cn


Right, toy tech. Still fun. I'm talking about the very idea of the thing.
You could lay is flat and measure the forces as you turn steel shot
around magnetically. That hasn't been done, so not even a toy.
I assume you like toys. I do.


----------



## RyanTheRhino (Nov 17, 2011)

silasraven said:


> dude that was intriguing. they were having way to much fun with that.


I half believe they take xanax up there to keep from going insane from the extreme boredom .

The Asian guy is the best lol. whooooooooooooo


----------



## Doer (Nov 17, 2011)

My very first Si-Fi. 8 years old, now allowed an extra privilege in the libary.
A new section, I can go in there!

Had never heard the term "science fiction." Hold on, what's this?
_Have Space Suit, will Travel_

I'm already humming, "...reads the card of a man, .........Paladin."
Heinlein? <shrug> It's not even cowboy. This kid won a Space Suit!


----------



## Capt. Stickyfingers (Nov 17, 2011)

I've been fascinated by outer space ever since the first time I saw the HBO movie intro when I was a kid.

[video=youtube;fD88ROtpnrs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD88ROtpnrs[/video]


----------



## Doer (Nov 17, 2011)

Wow, that brings me back. The music!


----------



## AMileHigh (Nov 20, 2011)

Check out "When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions" from the Discovery channel. Its streamable on netflix. Pretty astonishing stuff. 

It was called the space race for a reason. The drive behind most of it was a race with the ruskies. And back in those days this country had a real sense of unity and was willing to put forth the funding. Well minus Vietnam but you get the point. And everyone sits around and bickers over the budget trying to get the biggest portion for themselves. Not to mention all the problems we have here that we need to deal with i.e. our huge debt and things like our fucked up school system. Shits just too expensive. NASA is developing cheaper single rocket capsules akin to the Gemini rockets, but no matter how you look at it thats a big step down.

Private companies like Virgin Galactic are trying to pick up the slack, and while those are very cool ideas, they just dont have the funding or manpower that the government can throw at the problem. Not to mention they are just non-orbital thrill rides. The private sector will take a long time to catch up, if it ever does.

Today there is a sense of complacency with regard to space flight. Most of us grew up with The shuttle and unless something goes wrong its almost routine. Which is insane considering the extreme danger involved. Hell by the time Apollo got to 14,15,ect they werent even getting televised. We had won the "race" and our short attention spans were back on earth along with our wallets. 

Technology isnt the problem here. Cheap techonlogy is. Our smart phones have many times the computing power anything had 15 years ago much less back in the late 60's early 70's when we put men on the moon. What we need is a reason to get back up there. A reason beyond exploration and the fact that its pretty amazing. Maybe if we fuck up our planet enough we will have to leave earth again. Or stumble upon world peace, but honestly which is more likely to happen first?


----------



## AMileHigh (Nov 20, 2011)

wow that was quite the rant... For all the nostalgic nerds who read this thread i also recommend taking a tour at kennedy space center in FL. Its fucking sweet, there is a whole Saturn V rocket on its side in one of the buildings.


----------



## researchkitty (Nov 20, 2011)

AMileHigh said:


> Check out "When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions" from the Discovery channel. Its streamable on netflix. Pretty astonishing stuff.
> 
> It was called the space race for a reason. The drive behind most of it was a race with the ruskies. And back in those days this country had a real sense of unity and was willing to put forth the funding. Well minus Vietnam but you get the point. And everyone sits around and bickers over the budget trying to get the biggest portion for themselves. Not to mention all the problems we have here that we need to deal with i.e. our huge debt and things like our fucked up school system. Shits just too expensive. NASA is developing cheaper single rocket capsules akin to the Gemini rockets, but no matter how you look at it thats a big step down.
> 
> ...


Welcome to RIU  Very well put............. 

We need to focus on getting payloads into space, when we do that we can figure out the people part. Mostly because right now if we send a bunch of people out there, they dont have anything but an empty rock or empty planet and no tools or supplies (aka, their payload!) and have to return home to Earth instead..........


----------



## Doer (Nov 20, 2011)

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress ...Another early sci-fi favorite. 

Out of atomosphere is not only harsh, it is harshly mutagenic, too, it seems! You can't even be dirt side anywhere. Have to have dirt shelter. Oh, it can and will be done, I believe. We just about know how.
The idea of remote return fuel production plants hasn't been tried, even on a tiny scale, yet.

The Red Mars series about terraforming opened my eyes. People and politics.

They had a space elevator beanstalk more than once....well, I won't spoil the story.


----------



## redivider (Nov 20, 2011)

anybody here play eve online??

just curious...


----------



## Doer (Nov 21, 2011)

redivider said:


> anybody here play eve online??
> 
> just curious...


Hadn't heard of that one, but just reviewed it. Great theme, colonies lost from Earth.
A classic idea.

I just realized something about space invaders. The first place we colonize will likely be Earth's first invaders.

Or said another way, the answer to why the
universe seems so peaceful, is we haven't
been out there, yet?


----------



## The Ruiner (Nov 23, 2011)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2011/space-111117-eads01.htm




> *- A steerable antenna and a meteorological station will be the first *
> *Spanish space systems to reach the surface of Mars
> - The antenna will enable direct communication with the Deep Space Network on Earth without the need for intermediate links (satellites orbiting Mars)
> - The meteorological station will provide daily weather reports for the region where the rover is located and aid fundamental investigation of climatology and also the climate on Mars
> *


----------



## tyler.durden (Dec 5, 2011)

Hey, Neer! Have you heard about Kepler-22b? 600 light years away, it's a large, Earth-like planet believed to be temperate (in the 70s all the time). Check it out:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45554617/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.Tt2UPlaR6Sp


----------



## cannabineer (Dec 5, 2011)

tyler.durden said:


> Hey, Neer! Have you heard about Kepler-22b? 600 light years away, it's a large, Earth-like planet believed to be temperate (in the 70s all the time). Check it out:
> 
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45554617/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.Tt2UPlaR6Sp


Yes, thanks! I'm a bit bummed by how very indirect the Kepler method is. Our own planet passing in front of the sun, seen from a distant location, drops its brightness by 0.01% and has a max transit time of half a day. No chance of doing any imaging. I also noticed that they estimated the planet's diameter as 2.4x ours ... so that suggests a high local gravity and most likely a very thick atmosphere. I do not anticipate an effect on real estate prices.  cn


----------



## tyler.durden (Dec 5, 2011)

cannabineer said:


> Yes, thanks! I'm a bit bummed by how very indirect the Kepler method is. Our own planet passing in front of the sun, seen from a distant location, drops its brightness by 0.01% and has a max transit time of half a day. No chance of doing any imaging. I also noticed that they estimated the planet's diameter as 2.4x ours ... so that suggests a high local gravity and most likely a very thick atmosphere. I do not anticipate an effect on real estate prices.  cn



I didn't think about the gravity, it would be difficult to get around  Oh well, I guess I'll just keep looking...


----------



## Kursed Satan (Dec 27, 2011)

space is trippy


----------



## silasraven (Jan 23, 2012)

http://www.space.com/14290-russia-manned-moon-base-nasa-europe.html well i hope that says enough. theres a market for space craft. so just as the car companies started and all the tech colleges out there got kids working to become w/e space flight will get so simple you can build it yourself. give it a thought.


----------



## marcopolo123 (Jan 28, 2012)

@ cannabineer,

hey man they have a solution for your space travell desire...its something we call UFO, but take me seriously here. the germans were the first to reach this kind of technology around WWII. UFOs exist and im not talking about the ones that come from outer space because i have never seen an alien, but the ones that were and still are made on this planet are whats interesting. I can see that you are quit intelligent (much smarter than me) so u should dig around the internet for the "NAZI BELL" and that should lead you into all of the other cool stuff...and please dont forget about the greatest man to walk on this earth Nikola Tesla...lots of his work was NEVER EVER revealed cuz it got stolen from his lab right after he died and we all know who stole his work!! anyways what im really saying is in order for you and i to travell through space, NOT ORBIT around the earth, we need some kind of spacecraft that DOES NOT rely on fluid propulsion...we need something else....but the sad thing is they already have this technology and they r just hiding it from us...even if we had those UFOs or whatever that can take us in space i dont know if we can even leave this earth because of the Van Allen Belts!! and z particles and all of that other wonderful solar wind..lol

btw, no man has EVER put his foot on the moon!!


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 28, 2012)

marcopolo123 said:


> btw, no man has EVER put his foot on the moon!!


Funny how nutjob conspiracy theorists never make the conditional statements like "I don't believe man has ever walked on the moon" but instead state their conclusions as if they were undeniable facts and somehow they alone (along with their whacko friends) have special knowledge that contradicts reality.

Sir, this is a science subforum. If you want to play these stupid games, I suggest you post in the wackadoodle forum. Your post is an insult to the fine men and woman that made the Apollo program a success and even more so for those brave men that died in the process.


----------



## marcopolo123 (Jan 28, 2012)

alright science man...what u got to say about that foot print that dude put on the moon. NASA and all the other "science" people say that there is no water on the moon. therefor there is no moister present in any dirt on the ground. And i hope you know that you need water in dirt in order for it to hold the shape of a foot print..water acts as glue to the dirt particles..=D


----------



## marcopolo123 (Jan 28, 2012)

...and lets not talk about radiation..because ofcourse it doesnot effect human biengs!!


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 28, 2012)

1) They've found billions of tons of water on the moon. Indirectly, mind you ... but there sure seems to be accessible ice in a crater at the lunar south pole.
2) The lunar surface isn't dirt. I contains very many sharp-edged particles that'll do very nicely to hold a sharp-edged impression.


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 28, 2012)

marcopolo123 said:


> ...and lets not talk about radiation..because ofcourse it doesnot effect human biengs!!


Sex does that. 
As for _affecting_ humans ... it does. cn


----------



## marcopolo123 (Jan 29, 2012)

ok lets pretend that i agree with you and your tons of ice and sharp particles, sand also has sharp particles but not all types of sand of course, why havent we went up to the moon since the 60's?? I mean its been half a centry now and we havent stepped a foot on there "again". and why havent they build those space stations on the moon?

and i hope everyone here discusses things without hostility...unlike that guy "mindphuck"

@mindphuck
why are you calling people whacos or conspiracy theorist...dont be bias...look at the facts that both sides present, weigh them out, think logically about whats going on, then open you mouth!!..dont be so ignorant man...


now back to radiation talk...ummm the spacecraft that the those men were in would've needed a SOLID (not perforated) lead sheilding to protect them from the van allen belts...and if you know how to do some basic math you would find out that if the ship waas lined with lead it wouldve been too heavy to be propelled by that rocket...so it apears that the ship was not lined with lead which means they couldve not survived the radiation from the VAB, and the even worse radiation/solar wind outside of those belts...

honestly i dont care if we made it to the moon or not all i care about is how they manipulate science in such a hedious way...they just lie to us and say that they went right through the VAB!!! just like that!!...wtf man that radiation is a lot worse than any kind of radiation we can create on earth...its mother nature but at a universe scale

here is something cool
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyl1LsB7Xr8


----------



## marcopolo123 (Jan 29, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Sex does that.
> As for _affecting_ humans ... it does. cn


yaa thanks..i didnt know that


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 29, 2012)

Why pretend that you agree with me if you don't? It doesn't jibe well with your claimed desire to discuss things without hostility if your first sentence is equivalent to pre-emptively saying I'm full of, uuhhh, chocolate. 

Here's a little something about the Van Allen belts. You can dodge them on the z axis. cn

"The Van Allen belts are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing through them would be fried."
Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principal danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure. 
The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory. 
Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts. This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts.


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 29, 2012)

marcopolo123 said:


> ok lets pretend that i agree with you and your tons of ice and sharp particles, sand also has sharp particles but not all types of sand of course, why havent we went up to the moon since the 60's?? I mean its been half a centry now and we havent stepped a foot on there "again". and why havent they build those space stations on the moon?
> 
> and i hope everyone here discusses things without hostility...unlike that guy "mindphuck"


People that make unsubstantiated claims as fact rather than label them your belief, deserves intellectual hostility, especially when in the process you denigrate the names of many heroic people. I would be just as hostile if you said the Holocaust didn't happen. 

I am also hostile because of the way people like you distort what really is known by science and how science works to uncover the truth. You are an enemy of science hence deserve my hostility because of my defense of science. 


> @mindphuck
> why are you calling people whacos or conspiracy theorist...dont be bias...look at the facts that both sides present, weigh them out, think logically about whats going on, then open you mouth!!..dont be so ignorant man...


To believe in conspiracy theories is to avoid logic. It's not bias to criticize the poor logic required to believe that the lunar landing was a hoax when every single piece of 'evidence' that has been presented has been thoroughly discredited and debunked. Don't make the assumption I haven't looked at the facts and heard both sides. I have and come to the conclusion that your side is full of whacko conspiracy theorists that don't have a shred of proof.


----------



## marcopolo123 (Jan 29, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Why pretend that you agree with me if you don't? It doesn't jibe well with your claimed desire to discuss things without hostility if your first sentence is equivalent to pre-emptively saying I'm full of, uuhhh, chocolate.
> 
> Here's a little something about the Van Allen belts. You can dodge them on the z axis. cn
> 
> ...



hey man i never said you were full of "chocolate"..because your not the one responsible for the misleading media!!

maybe my brain was mislead with conspiracy ...the cameras that the astronauts wore on thier suits had etched referance crosshairs on the lens..so how come in some of the images you can see the crosshairs behind objects..that includes one of the astronauts?.....on other photos the sun is in the background behind one of the astronauts but on that same image you can clearly see the front of his suit which is facing the camera. go out with your phone before sunset so the sun would be low and take a picture of whatever you want but make sure the sun is backlighting that object and let me know what you see......and please im not starting a war here...im checkin out your point of view and giving it a serious thought and i hope you do the same with mine.


@mindphuck

ok so your saying that im making claims facts but the ONLY facts you have are a bunch of photographs and vedios!! that almost any amature photographer today can duplicate!! so back in the 60's if they posessed technology to take them to the moon dont you think they have enough technology to make a video that looks like the moon surface?

"to belive conspiracy theorist is to avoid logic"....dude where on earth did you get that from...if you were presented by a case which has more than one side to it you must look at all of the sides individually and evaluate what is fact from fiction..thats logic...and how would you know which side is the conspiracy?....so here all of us including myself are taking our "facts" from one source which is the media..i just chose to look on one of the other sides just for a bit, and the other side is presenting more facts than the other side wich only shows me photos and claims!


----------



## mindphuk (Jan 29, 2012)

marcopolo123 said:


> @mindphuck
> 
> ok so your saying that im making claims facts but the ONLY facts you have are a bunch of photographs and vedios!!


Only photos and videos, along with personal witnesses and physical evidence such as moon rocks and regolith, (which happen to differ from terrestrial rocks in levels of isotopes http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast23feb_2/), and probably the best, a reflector placed on the moon by Apollo 11 astronauts that can be used by you, me or anyone that desires.


> so back in the 60's if they posessed technology to take them to the moon dont you think they have enough technology to make a video that looks like the moon surface?


This is not an argument. That a moon landing can be faked does not mean it was. This is typical of conspiracy theories, making up facts to fit observations. Using this technique everything is history is subject to doubt and question. I don't think there is anything wrong with doubting, I'm a skeptic, but at some point you have to decide what you think is the most likely truth. The moon landing hoax just makes too many unsupported assumptions to come to the conclusion. 



> "to belive conspiracy theorist is to avoid logic"....dude where on earth did you get that from...if you were presented by a case which has more than one side to it you must look at all of the sides individually and evaluate what is fact from fiction..thats logic...and how would you know which side is the conspiracy?


Again, you mistake me for someone that hasn't done the evaluation. 




> ....so here all of us including myself are taking our "facts" from one source which is the media..i just chose to look on one of the other sides just for a bit, and the other side is presenting more facts than the other side wich only shows me photos and claims!


You can investigate these claims without using "the media" as a source. You can visit NASA, interview astronauts, bounce a laser off of the reflector on the moon, read the scientific literature on isotope levels in moon rocks. 

Let's see some of your 'evidence.'


----------



## cannabineer (Jan 29, 2012)

Marcopolo, I am not quite up on my Apollo denier theories. I do remember the thing about the crosshairs photo ... it proved to be an ordinary, explainable optical effect. Here is a site that describes much of the peculiarities of Apollo photos, and explains them to my satisfaction.
It also has a backlit pic of Buzz Aldrin. If you look in his faceplate, you see Armstrong catching full sun on a white suit, and some of the Lem. That'll throw enough light to provide the "fill" for the picture ... if you remember that the lunar surface is remarkably dark, like fresh blacktop. 

I took a nice pic of my xgf into a bright sunset. She was not a silhouette because she was facing me while I was leaning for stability against a white car. 

http://www.clavius.org/photoret.html

<edit> If you look really hard at the photos and videos of the Apollo flights and landings, many many little details crop up that cannot have been faked using the tech and knowledge of the time. The fact that these photos etc. have stood the test of time is powerfully suggestive to me that they are the real deal as presented. The counterproposals that I've seen, say, in the Comments section of Youtube's astronaut clips ... I haven't found one yet that stood up to rational inquiry any better than a croissant to a firehose. 

I am very leery of conspiracy theories in general, for two reasons. 
1) The human psyche seems super prone to believing them. Conspiracy theories are like cane sugar ... bad for you, but who can have just one?
2) Concealing a large technical secret is HARD, especially in the presence of the necessary elaborate cover story.
C) ~grin~ The conspiracy theories that rely on a dismissal of physics (Apollocaust, Haarp and Chemtrails fit this category, as do the juicier Area 51 tales) are easily shredded by a remarkably casual application of physics.

The problem there is that there are so many who won't believe physics, even though they can be built up piece by piece from basic principles with the same result every time. And yet we have people who have grown up to hold jobs, operate investment accounts and rebuild classic car engines ... who believe in such I'd laugh-but-for-crying shite like the Electric Universe theories (Velikovsky reheated with gravy). cn


----------



## Dank Raptor (Jan 30, 2012)

[video=youtube;aqlo_spATEM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqlo_spATEM[/video]


----------



## Weedasaurus (Feb 1, 2012)

so what happens to the international space station.


----------



## marcopolo123 (Feb 3, 2012)

ok you guys win..but the same people that you guys believe also told us that jet fuel melted the steel in the world trade centers...before anyone here attacks me, i truly honor and respect the men and women that died in there...a quick google search tells me that:

Jet fuel Open air burning temp. is 500-599 F ....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
Carbon Steel melting point is 2600-2800 F....http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

and they use mild steel for construction such as Re-bars, I-beams, steel mesh, etc..

so if the same people that went to the moon are trying to change science as it pleases them, its hard for me to believe them....and i dont care what happens.. if you have something etched on a camera lens there is no way that it could appear behind an object in an image...

and for the steel buildings, no steel construction building has ever colapsed do to fires! google that s**t


----------



## marcopolo123 (Feb 3, 2012)

"The problem there is that there are so many who won't believe physics, even though they can be built up piece by piece from basic principles with the same result every time. And yet we have people who have grown up to hold jobs, operate investment accounts and rebuild classic car engines ... who believe in such I'd laugh-but-for-crying shite like the Electric Universe theories (Velikovsky reheated with gravy). cn"

dude thats exactly what i dont understand....its just physics
and i am an educated man..not some teenager posting up on here..

what do you mean by "Electric Universe theories"...if your talking about electricty from space..such as the device that T.H. Morray built and your saying thats nonsense, then you need to brush up on your physics a bit because people have acomplished such things.
idk what the "Electric Universe" is but i youtubed it and i saw Tesla in the background of one of them, and that man is responsible for the electricity that we use today, without him we wouldnt have all of todays luxries!


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 3, 2012)

marcopolo123 said:


> ok you guys win..but the same people that you guys believe also told us that jet fuel melted the steel in the world trade centers...before anyone here attacks me, i truly honor and respect the men and women that died in there...a quick google search tells me that:
> 
> Jet fuel Open air burning temp. is 500-599 F ....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
> Carbon Steel melting point is 2600-2800 F....http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html
> ...


[video=youtube;N2TMVDYpp2Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=N2TMVDYpp2Q[/video]


----------



## marcopolo123 (Feb 3, 2012)

nice video

1) Black smoke - air fuel ratio is too high (rich), oxygen deprived fire which means it can not burn up to maximum temp. Idk how in the world an OPEN-Air kerosene flame can reach 2010 F like in the vid.
2)That is single loaded i-beam not even held by the supports...its just resting there. I dont think thats how the towers were build..and of course NIST said that the fireproofing fell off upon impact. Thats an awsome story, they must have been inside when the building burned!
3) They heated up just one beam...where are the rest of the beams that make up some kind if structure...the WTC had trusses not only i-beams, also a small concrete slab to serve as flooring and concrete is an exellent refractory material. They should make at least a i-beam box frame then burn that kerosene 
4) The steel structure would draw the heat away from the hottest point by conduction and the steel itself will heat up by convection from the open air fire. Therefor you will need more time and energy (jouls) to reach the desired deformation temperatures. 
5) I dont think that the world trade center was a swimming pool, so why are those people in vids are filling up an excavated hole with fuel and igniting it?....come on man dont you think fuel would escape out through any hole?...of course it would because the plane made quite a big one on its way in.

not to mension that i beam is kind of small, and they did state that in the vid...open up a thermodynamics book...look up the calorific value of jet fuel, work out how many tons of steel you need to heat up, choose the desired temp you want...youl need to know how long the gas has burned for before you start...or the volume of the gas...and keep in mind that its not gonna be an isothermal process and its not going to be an adiabatic process...and since its not an adiabatic process, which is impossible unless the precess is done exteremly fast so no time is given for the Q (heat) to conduct, convict, or radiate, you'll need to work out how much heat was carried away by the wind and other objects such as the other connected I-beams, trusses, etc..

i studied that stuff back in the days but if you need help with those calculations let me know. the WTC was designed to take impact from planes, as engineers we must leave nothing to chance..

and i think your the man i talked to about logic..how about this: someone who fails to fly a sesna goes out hijacks a 747 with a box cutter, makes a u-turn IN THE AIR,he has no coordinates of the towers, but somehow eyeballs it from a thousand miles and magically and i repeat MAGICALLY aims with his trusty Shmidt and Bender scope and hits the building dead on at 500 mph!!!....that right there my friend is the most logical story ever!! and thats where the fun begins, if you think you got answers then we should talk about the pentagon...thats where titanium evaporates from the heat that it deals with every time it works

fighter jet pilots stated that its would be impossible to manuver that gigantic plane with that acuracy..commercial pilots have stated the same thing...but ofcourse those terrorists are professionals


----------



## ultraviolet pirate (Feb 4, 2012)

i wish i knew how to post shit, im not too savvy with the computer, i would post the video of buzz aldrin having enough of the "you were never there" noise and punching the dude at the airport.


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 4, 2012)

marcopolo123 said:


> "The problem there is that there are so many who won't believe physics, even though they can be built up piece by piece from basic principles with the same result every time. And yet we have people who have grown up to hold jobs, operate investment accounts and rebuild classic car engines ... who believe in such I'd laugh-but-for-crying shite like the Electric Universe theories (Velikovsky reheated with gravy). cn"
> 
> dude thats exactly what i dont understand....its just physics
> and i am an educated man..not some teenager posting up on here..
> ...



If you want to be amused, here is a website taking the Electric Universe theories seriously. Some cool pics.

As for the "so many who won't believe physics" remark, please don't take it personally. Almost all hard-core "Apollo conspiracy" believers will hold onto their ideas quite tenaciously despite some very good, plausible counterarguments. You've shown me you are not one such, and I tip my hat.

As far as the 9/11 disaster and the melting point of steel ... the melting point is much less important than the softening point. Steel (even premium tool steel) will lose its temper at 500 degrees or less, and can be productively forged at 800 degrees, a barely visible dull red heat. If it's soft enough to forge, it will have lost its structural strength, and it's still two thousand degrees away from outright melting. cn


----------



## marcopolo123 (Feb 4, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> If you want to be amused, here is a website taking the Electric Universe theories seriously. Some cool pics.
> 
> As for the "so many who won't believe physics" remark, please don't take it personally. Almost all hard-core "Apollo conspiracy" believers will hold onto their ideas quite tenaciously despite some very good, plausible counterarguments. You've shown me you are not one such, and I tip my hat.
> 
> As far as the 9/11 disaster and the melting point of steel ... the melting point is much less important than the softening point. Steel (even premium tool steel) will lose its temper at 500 degrees or less, and can be productively forged at 800 degrees, a barely visible dull red heat. If it's soft enough to forge, it will have lost its structural strength, and it's still two thousand degrees away from outright melting. cn


thanks cn...you have showed great manners while arguing and i respect that.

ya your right about the steel its not about the melting point..tempering is a process thats done on high carbon steels such as tool steels and HSS (high speed steel)...if your going to temper the steel then it has been hardened and you tempering would relive some stress from the steel and allows it to be more ductile, depending on the tempering process.

its about the yield strength and the tensile strength of the steel..yeild strength is where the plastic deformation begins and tensile is where the part will undergo necking, you can say it is the ultimate strength where after that it can no longer hold the stress applied
heat will cause those valued to drop but thats where engineers come in to do some math!

the truth about 9/11 can be revieled with only a stop watch! thats why i love physics...and i believe that you also do...so if you still remember those boring freefall equations we can use this one: t= sqaure root of (2*d/g)
t = time
d = distance in meters = 415 m (WTC2) Wtc1 is at 417 m which is similar
g = 9.81 m/s[SUP]2

[/SUP]we plug in the number and we get about 9.2 seconds..thats the time it takes for any object to fall to the ground from that height, neglecting wind resistance and assuming a constant gravitational force throughout the fall (the height can be neglected because its not that far away from the surface of the earth.

Now for the important logical part. the number above can be calculated by any one of us and it is 100 percent right, neglecting the things mentioned, which is close enough for our work here. 
Imagine 30-stories worth of steel, concrete, and office stuff..if we drop it from that height WITHOUT anything to obstruct its way it would reach the ground at aproximatly 9.2 seconds. for you non physics folks, freefall time is not a function of mass its a function of height soo mass doesnot matter.

Now lets put a structure about 70-stories high in the way of the fallling 30 floors...what can you conclude? just straight thinking, nothing else, can tell us that the structure is going to resist the fall of that lump of steel and concrete (thats if it even breaks all the way  ) causing the time it took to reach the ground to increase. and the last 30 floors should somewhat be intact because they must have crushed the rest of the building to reach the ground as they tell us. 
the WTCs collapsed in about 10 seconds...thats fast dude!!..you have CONCRETE AND STEEL in the way!!! how is that even possible? (there is an answer for that ofcourse)


That right there is the ultimate and the easiest way that proofs 9/11 has some stories that are hidden!...

please go to youtube and calculate how long it took for the buildings to fall and let me know.

and please watch this vid and let me know of you thought...just look at the still pictures in there...and keep in mind that a buiding is not a piston and cylinder you can't get great compressions to happen in there...


----------



## marcopolo123 (Feb 4, 2012)

here is the vid
[video=youtube;Pd8B-8Au-Wk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd8B-8Au-Wk[/video]

WTF caused those horizontal ejections? think about it


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 4, 2012)

marcopolo123 said:


> the WTCs collapsed in about 10 seconds...thats fast dude!!..you have CONCRETE AND STEEL in the way!!! how is that even possible? (there is an answer for that ofcourse)


Of course multiple cameras show it taking 14-15 seconds, not 10. The rubble and debris is falling faster than the building collapses. This alone proves the towers did not fall at free-fall speeds. 

[video=youtube;qLShZOvxVe4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4[/video]


----------



## marcopolo123 (Feb 4, 2012)

ok sure 15 seconds to turn 100 floors into dust, and why did they turn to dust? and what are those horizontal ejections in the vid i posted...please dont tell me its compression from the falling floors, because if its a compression discharge then trapped air is what would be ejected not beams and concrete dust


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 4, 2012)

My guess is thatonce the upper portion has been falling for, oh, 2 seconds, it's moving 40 to 50 mph. At those speeds it is hitting stationary steel and concrete. The colliding portions are experiencing tens of Gs, crushing the concrete and shearing the steel like so much drywall under a sledgehammer. With so much of the building's core first crushed by the impact, then cooked by the fire, the upper portion will quickly reach a speed where the only thing that'll stop it is something poorly compressible, like asphalt and bedrock. 

I don't know for a fact that that is what happened, but it makes sense to me. Scale has interesting effects. Toy cars can withstand tens of MPH of collision (real mph, not scaled). Real cars cannot because they are big, and the structural members cannot be scaled. The WTC towers were so big that a dynamically appropriate 1:250 scale model could realistically be made of toothpicks and pie crust. 
Oh, and I noticed I never posted that Electric Universe website ... it's thunderbolts.info. A classic instance of what began as Pathological Science and went on into full-house mysticism. cn


----------



## marcopolo123 (Feb 5, 2012)

asphalt and bedrock are poorly compressible but so is concrete...and steel doesnt compress and turn into chuncks or pieces. Steel buckles under compression. It doesnt simply turn into chuncks of I-beams. 
You migh be right about the coliding portions crushing everything but if u do a quick calculation based on the FREE FALL, which means there is NOTHING in the way even air is excluded, and the floor heigt is 13'4" so that would comeout to be 20.537 mph not 40 or 50. Now lets put some steel and concrete in the way and im quit sure that the speed is going to reduced significantly. 

If we say that thats how they fell down then the collapse of the building would slow down foot by foot due to the loss in kinetic energy when it collides of the floors below that HAVE NOT been touched by a single flame. It juslt like when you play pool, you hit the cue ball and when it collides with the other ball it transfers some kinetic energy, therefor it slows down but it makes the other ball move but as at slower rate than the cue ball. Based on that FACT that you can observe when you play pool we can conclude that those top 30 floors that fell down onto the building would keep on slowing down no matter what kind of material is in the way, even if you put wood in the way it would still slow it down and inch by inch you can calculate the deceleration. What if you put steel and concrete in the way? It is impossible for an object thats moving at speed to collide with something and keep moving at the same speed. 

You can observe that the buildings are falling at a constant rate from the top to the bottom, which is a big problem here.

For mr. mindphuck

my original freefall calculation (9.2 s) did not even deal with wind resistance, its hard to even calculate the wind resistance but it can be done. What we know is 9.2s is the time it would take for an object to fall to the surface of the earth from 415m with out air underneath.
Again, lets put something in the way such as air. The time would increase, how much it increases you can work the math out yourself but it would add around 2seconds due to the shape of the cross sectional area of the floors. Put some more material such as I-beams, Trusses, which you can google how strong they are (try the crane booms), concrete, office supplies and all that you can think of. Based on that im sure and i know that if it was to fall naturally due to the heat or whatever the time is going to increase and it would surpass your 14-15 second window by a lot.

and please if your going to present something as fact OR argue with my numbers, go do some math your-self and then compare your results with mine. and if anyone has a problem with the simple equations i used please let me know


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 5, 2012)

marcopolo123 said:


> my original freefall calculation (9.2 s) did not even deal with wind resistance, its hard to even calculate the wind resistance but it can be done. What we know is 9.2s is the time it would take for an object to fall to the surface of the earth from 415m with out air underneath.


Air resistance is negligible until you begin to approach terminal velocity. 


> Again, lets put something in the way such as air. The time would increase, how much it increases you can work the math out yourself but it would add around 2seconds due to the shape of the cross sectional area of the floors. Put some more material such as I-beams, Trusses, which you can google how strong they are (try the crane booms), concrete, office supplies and all that you can think of. Based on that im sure and i know that if it was to fall naturally due to the heat or whatever the time is going to increase and it would surpass your 14-15 second window by a lot.


Prove it.


> and please if your going to present something as fact OR argue with my numbers, go do some math your-self and then compare your results with mine. and if anyone has a problem with the simple equations i used please let me know


I had no issue with your calculations, just your timing. You are typical of conspiracy theorists. You begin with a claim that the towers fell at free-fall speed, now after you have been proven wrong, you modify your claim to say the air resistance and lower structures should make the collapse take longer than the 50% longer than your original calculation. Admit it, no amount of evidence will make you reconsider your claim because you are wed to the idea. That is the defining characteristic of a conspiracy theorist. Don't come here to tell me to do math to refute your claim when you're just pulling numbers out of your ass.


----------



## marcopolo123 (Feb 6, 2012)

yes they fell closer to freefall speed than crushing 70 floors speed...that is a lot of math to do for myself and i dont need to do it cuz others have done so...again your attacking with out sufficient proof of your claims...yes terminal velocity is where wind resistance is greatest. but on the other hand a falling feather is falling at terminal velocity even though it is slow, which means that its no longer acceletating because the downward force equals the upward force caused by drag. For, example a parachute creates enough drag to stop humans from acelerating during a fall, and that can be said that the human and the parachute are falling at terminal velocity. 

Drag is a function of shape! and they have drag coefficients for diffeent shapes.

So, im pulling numbers out of my ass and you the smart ass couldnt figure out that a flatt objects such as building floors have a high coef. of drag..

come on man if your going to talk about scientific things pleaese study it at first and then come out and call us names and shit.

sit back and roll your self a phat one and enjoy this "evidence" that i lack of 

[video=youtube;i3MN9382eGY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3MN9382eGY[/video]


----------



## ginjawarrior (Feb 7, 2012)

marcopolo123 said:


> yes they fell closer to freefall speed than crushing 70 floors speed...that is a lot of math to do for myself and i dont need to do it cuz others have done so...again your attacking with out sufficient proof of your claims...yes terminal velocity is where wind resistance is greatest. but on the other hand a falling feather is falling at terminal velocity even though it is slow, which means that its no longer acceletating because the downward force equals the upward force caused by drag. For, example a parachute creates enough drag to stop humans from acelerating during a fall, and that can be said that the human and the parachute are falling at terminal velocity.
> 
> Drag is a function of shape! and they have drag coefficients for diffeent shapes.
> 
> ...


what exactly is crushing 70stories speed?

20stories of falling scyscraper has much much more weight to surface area in comparison to a feather 
loose change is bunk try this version

[youtube]GodGViR7T4I[/youtube]


----------



## Blaze Master (Feb 7, 2012)

how did a space thread turn into a 9/11 conspiracy thread. damnit stoners lets get back on track and discuss space


----------



## bluejunta (Feb 8, 2012)

I'm with NEWT!!! Moon Colony by end of his second term!! I wonder how MJ grows in space....


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 8, 2012)

cn




=


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 8, 2012)

Random note:
Last night I was reading about the New madrid earthquake in Missouri/Kentucky. I noticed that the date of the third main shock (magnitude approx. 8.0) was February 7th, 1812. I was reading about the event on its bicentennial. cn


----------



## deprave (Feb 10, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> Random note:
> Last night I was reading about the New madrid earthquake in Missouri/Kentucky. I noticed that the date of the third main shock (magnitude approx. 8.0) was February 7th, 1812. I was reading about the event on its bicentennial. cn


 why do you always write 'cn'..what is that?


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 10, 2012)

It's a vestigial signature. I formerly ended my posts by writing "cheers 'neer". I'm enough a product of the old school that I treat posts on a forum like this as the written word ... letters, essays, tiny treatises. Such require a bit more formality than the fragments of bird-chatter that typically pass for posts. I stand firm and nearly alone against the grim tide of the text-message apocalypse. Sancho! My armor - !!
cn


----------



## ginjawarrior (Feb 10, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> It's a vestigial signature. I formerly ended my posts by writing "cheers 'neer". I'm enough a product of the old school that I treat posts on a forum like this as the written word ... letters, essays, tiny treatises. Such require a bit more formality than the fragments of bird-chatter that typically pass for posts. I stand firm and nearly alone against the grim tide of the text-message apocalypse. Sancho! My armor - !!
> cn


although i haven't spent the time following this doctrine, i whole heartedly approve of it, there is a silent attack on our language and grammar.

just in case anyone finds fault with what i've said i'll point you towards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 10, 2012)

I dont think we have been to the moon.if you look at the pictures of the lem the area under the main thruster is undisturbed. even at 1700 pounds it would still weigh 170 or so. how could you set it down so nicely without breaking something or disturbing the fine moon dust?infact under the lem from the front leg back seems to be distorted you cant make anything out. you see what looks like small craters but its clearly a copied and repetitive image. and I also think the wtc was imploded if you look at the videos close up you can see the demo charges going off in sequence all the way up the building. plus by looking at the rubble you can see the main beams have been gut close to a 45 degree angle. it fell exactly how the demo team planned it. and what happened to the 30 tucks full of gold? they only found one .


----------



## ginjawarrior (Feb 10, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> I dont think we have been to the moon.if you look at the pictures of the lem the area under the main thruster is undisturbed. even at 1700 pounds it would still weigh 170 or so. how could you set it down so nicely without breaking something or disturbing the fine moon dust?infact under the lem from the front leg back seems to be distorted you cant make anything out. you see what looks like small craters but its clearly a copied and repetitive image.










> and I also think the wtc was imploded if you look at the videos close up you can see the demo charges going off in sequence all the way up the building. plus by looking at the rubble you can see the main beams have been gut close to a 45 degree angle. it fell exactly how the demo team planned it. and what happened to the 30 tucks full of gold? they only found one .


http://www.debunking911.com/
grow up


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 10, 2012)

These aren't even the highest resolution the LROC can take. The footprints are still there after all of these years.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Feb 10, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> These aren't even the highest resolution the LROC can take. The footprints are still there after all of these years.


i'd imagine in the future the person who brings back the lunar rover will earn much more than all earths arts combined from auction

on a side note the Chinese must also be in on the ploy







now even forgetting the fact that theres a man made mirror on the moon why on earth would china keep up the lie?


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 11, 2012)

think about this why would we fly to the moon put a mirror up there and fly back to shoot a laser at it to find out how far away it is thats the stupidest waste of time and money. and your images are crystal clear btw good job you cleared everything up for us. what about prop c? ever hear of it? its a rock that the astronauts took a picture of. it had a perfect c on the top i can see why they would take a picture but 30 years later they changed the picture. why?


----------



## ginjawarrior (Feb 11, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> think about this why would we fly to the moon put a mirror up there and fly back to shoot a laser at it to find out how far away it is thats the stupidest waste of time and money.


*Argument from incredulity*


> and your images are crystal clear btw good job you cleared everything up for us.


the quality of those pictures are only going to get better over the years. moon hoaxers are going to find it harder and harder to deny it


> what about prop c? ever hear of it? its a rock that the astronauts took a picture of. it had a perfect c on the top i can see why they would take a picture but 30 years later they changed the picture. why?


prop c? why dont you show us some evidence of what your saying


----------



## Brick Top (Feb 11, 2012)

Four nuclear powered seismic stations were installed during the Apollo project to collect seismic data about the interior of the Moon. There is only residual tectonic activity due to cooling and tidal forcing, but other moonquakes have been caused by meteor impacts and artificial means, such as deliberately crashing the Lunar Module into the moon. The results have shown the Moon to have a crust 60 kilometers (37 miles) thick at the center of the near side. If this crust is uniform over the Moon, it would constitute about 10% of the Moon's volume as compared to the less than 1% on Earth. The seismic determinations of a crust and mantle on the Moon indicate a layered planet with differentiation by igneous processes. There is no evidence for an iron-rich core unless it were a small one. Seismic information has influenced theories about the formation and evolution of the Moon. 

http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moon.htm


I suppose that is all a lie, part of the cover story thought up by the government.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Feb 11, 2012)

Brick Top said:


> Four nuclear powered seismic stations were installed during the Apollo project to collect seismic data about the interior of the Moon. There is only residual tectonic activity due to cooling and tidal forcing, but other moonquakes have been caused by meteor impacts and artificial means, such as deliberately crashing the Lunar Module into the moon. The results have shown the Moon to have a crust 60 kilometers (37 miles) thick at the center of the near side. If this crust is uniform over the Moon, it would constitute about 10% of the Moon's volume as compared to the less than 1% on Earth. The seismic determinations of a crust and mantle on the Moon indicate a layered planet with differentiation by igneous processes. There is no evidence for an iron-rich core unless it were a small one. Seismic information has influenced theories about the formation and evolution of the Moon.
> 
> http://www.solarviews.com/eng/moon.htm
> 
> ...


well they had to make it believable 
[youtube]P6MOnehCOUw[/youtube]


----------



## Brick Top (Feb 11, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> think about this why would we fly to the moon put a mirror up there and fly back to shoot a laser at it to find out how far away it is thats the stupidest waste of time and money. and your images are crystal clear btw good job you cleared everything up for us. what about prop c? ever hear of it? its a rock that the astronauts took a picture of. it had a perfect c on the top i can see why they would take a picture but 30 years later they changed the picture. why?




Of course this is all a made up story.



> [h=3]What Neil & Buzz Left on the Moon[/h]
> * What Neil & Buzz Left on the Moon*
> *A cutting-edge science experiment left behind in the Sea of Tranquility by Apollo 11 astronauts is still running today.*​​
> 
> ...




Did they also fake the deaths of the Apollo 1 astronauts? 

The one bit of trickery that I have not yet been able to figure out was how when I was a kid and my family went to one of the Apollo moon landing launches, which I cannot remember at the moment, and looking through binoculars I could clearly see astronauts walk the gantry and enter the capsule .... how did they slip them out before launch? Was there something like a water slide that went from the capsule down through the Saturn V rocket and they slid out unseen underground and an empty capsule was blasted off, or did they go up and just hang out while someone else here on earth, in Hollywood or Area 51 or something, do the fake shit that was seen on TV?


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 11, 2012)

The only thing I'll add is a comment on the term "nuclear power". Almost all nuclear power in space relies on thermoelectric junctions driven by the delta T between a heat sink and a hot slug of radioisotopes, typically plutonium-238, which has a fast enough rate of decay to make a lot of heat in a small package, and slow enough to provide useful power for many years, as the Pioneers and Voyagers demonstrate to this day. The Lem had a radiothermal generator that required a hands-on step by an astronaut to bring on line.
Terrestrial nuclear power, and "nuclear power" by default (imo), means throttlable neutronic fission reactors heating an exchange fluid that then drives an expansion turbine.
I would favor referring to the space application as "radiothermal" in order to minimize the confusion with fission power. cn


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 11, 2012)

ginjawarrior said:


> prop c? why dont you show us some evidence of what your saying


He's talking about a piece of hair or something that got caught in the plate during reproduction. This mysterious "C" doesn't show up on the original photograph nor the pictures of the same scene preceding and following. Thorough explanation and debunking here


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 11, 2012)

If you're going to believe in stupid conspiracies, it is only intellectually honest to read what the 'opposition' says, at a minimum. The fact that people like marcopolo and ismokealotofpot don't even know what the standard response to their claims are tells me that they have no interest in the truth or facts but merely hear something, sounds plausible (to them), so they immediately believe it without spending an ounce of energy trying to look for alternate explanations for the 'evidence.' Why is it that someone can be skeptical of the real explanations but be so credulous when it comes to their crazy claims about conspiracy? It's interesting that both of these posters not only believe the moon landing was faked but they also accept the dubious _Loose Change_ 9/11 conspiracy as well. I guess it's more fun to be a contrarian and believe you have special knowledge than to spend valuable brain resources and learning how to think critically.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 13, 2012)

Look dude I can be cool with you, but do not insult my intelligence. I always say people make the best pets we are so docile and let our masters tell us whats good for us. If you never question things and ask why then the devil will run his ass all over you. Ive read both sides looked at all the info. Space is interesting to me and ill continue to be interested for years to come. If you believe it go ahead see I don't care. im not saying your wasting brain resources on a pot forum am I?


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 13, 2012)

do you see any disturbance on the grown from the main thruster?


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 13, 2012)

*15 Reasons Why Man Has Never Set Foot on The Moon*

[HR][/HR]





15. "Tricky Dick" Richard Nixon was president at the time. He was the king of cover-up, secret tapes and scandal. Think about all of his potential antics that were not discovered.


14. A successful manned mission to the moon offered a wonderful pride-boosting distraction for the near revolt of the US citizens over 50,000 deaths in the Vietnam War.


13. The Soviets had a five-to-one superiority to the U.S. in manned hours in space. They were first in achieving the following seven important milestones:




1. First manmade satellite in earth orbit

2. First man in space

3. First man to orbit the earth

4. First woman in space

5. The first crew of three astronauts onboard one spacecraft

6. The first space walk

7. The first of two orbiting space craft rendezvousing


This put America at a perceived military disadvantage in missile technology during the very height of the Cold War.







12. Neil Armstrong, the first man to supposedly walk on the moon, refuses to give interviews to anyone on the subject. "Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies." Collins also refuses to be interviewed. Aldrin, who granted an interview, threatened to sue us if we showed it to anyone.


11. Newly retouched photographs correct errors from previously released versions. Why would they be updating thirty-year-old pictures if they really went to the moon?






With Prop ID "C"








After: "C" Removed


10. Rediscovered lost footage shows the American flag blowing in the wind. The wind was probably caused by intense air-conditioning used to cool the astronauts in their lightened, uncirculated, space suits. The cooling systems in the backpacks would have been removed to lighten the load not designed for earth's six times heavier gravity, otherwise they might have fallen over.














9. Enlarged photographs underneath the lunar lander's 10,000 lb. thrust engine show the soil completely undisturbed. During ground tests there was grave concern for the vehicle falling into the hole the engine created as it descended. An oversight that they would have to keep consistent for all subsequent moon missions. They attributed it to the effect of no atmosphere (except for the flag blowing in the wind - see # 10!)








8. Rare, uncirculated photographs, allegedly from the moon's surface, show scenes supposedly lit solely by sunlight. Yet they contain shadows that do not run parallel with each other, indicating supplemental artificial light. Sunlight would cast shadows that would never intersect.






7. The moon is 250,000 miles away. The space shuttle has never gone more than 400 miles from the Earth. Except for Apollo astronauts, no humans even claim to have gone beyond low-earth orbit. When the space shuttle astronauts did get to an altitude of 400 miles, the radiation of the Van Allen belts forced them to a lower altitude. The Van Allen radiation belts exist because the Earth's magnetic field traps the solar wind.








6. The top portion of the lunar module which landed on the moon supposedly popped up off the moon with two astronauts aboard, entered lunar orbit 60 miles up, and docked with the command module in lunar orbit. To look at its design and think such could have actually occurred is absolutely ludicrous. The fuel tanks were nowhere near one-sixth the size of those on the space shuttle as one would expect to achieve lunar orbit




.


5. The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side where they landed. There is no way they could have rejected the heat for as long as 72 hours as they claim on some Apollo missions. How long do you think you could keep your car cool on a hot day running off battery power?


4. Take a look at the lunar module which supposedly flew from lunar orbit to the surface of the moon. It is a cylindrical shape with a high center of gravity and one big thrust engine at the bottom. Upon just looking at this design, to think it would not immediately pinwheel and crash, as the lunar module trainer did three weeks prior on Earth, is absurd.






3. After the Apollo 11 mission, Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin gave a press conference. When asked whether they remembered seeing any stars from the surface of the moon, Collins, who was supposedly in the command module the whole time, gave a wrong answer to a question he should not have been answering. The relevant portion of this clip is in my documentary; viewing it with an understanding of the circumstances makes it clear they were lying about having traveled to the moon. I'm saying Collins blew it right then and there and I honestly cannot understand why there is even further discussion on the whole topic. Furthermore, if you obtain a written transcript of the press conference you'll see that the comment is erroneously attributed to Aldrin. Honest mistake or cover-up?







2. In 1967 three astronauts were burned alive on the launch pad. The upshot of the congressional inquiry was that the entire Apollo program was in shambles and it was a miracle no one was killed sooner. All of the problems were supposedly fixed by 1969, just two years later. How could they have made such a large improvement in "quality control" in such a short period of time.


1. All Apollo missions stayed in low-earth orbit for the duration of the trip. We uncovered some mislabeled, unedited, behind-the-scenes footage from NASA that shows the crew of Apollo 11 clearly staging a shot of being half-way to the moon.
​​


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 13, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> do you see any disturbance on the grown from the main thruster?


Actually yes, it does look like there is radial disturbance of the regolith.


Also see AS11-40-5892 or AS11-40-5921 (from the ALSJ) which shows not only some discoloration under the descent engine, but also some radial disturbance in the soil from the outward blast. Also, see AS12-46-6781 which shows a trail of disturbed soil along the ground track of the Apollo 12 lunar module. On the left edge of this frame is the TV camera with some footprints right next to the small crater. The engine exhaust trail goes almost straight across the lower part of the image, about a quarter of the way from the bottom of the frame. There is some disturbed soil caused by an astronaut's footprints that angles diagonally across the exhaust trail, meeting it at the right edge of the image. If the landings were faked, placing a blast crater under the LM would be the most obvious thing to do in order to "fool" the unwitting public. In fact, there was plenty of dust, but the moons' regolith is rather densely packed due to billions of years of gardening and a lack of air on the moon.

View attachment 2056326View attachment 2056327View attachment 2056328

Something else to ponder from this website. 

If in fact we did go to the Moon, as NASA contends, then the evidence that we did go to the Moon should stand up to scrutiny. That evidence has been in the public domain for 30 years now in the form of photographs, images of spacecraft taken by astronauts in other spacecraft as well as images of the spacecraft heading towards the moon by telescope from the Earth, video records broadcast in real-time and seen in real-time, scientific experiments placed on the moon (whose placement was clearly documented by the lunar photography including still photography by the astronauts and video images transmitted in real-time), moonrocks and samples returned from the surface of the moon which support the supposition that they resided on the Moon (by examining the chemical makeup of the rocks, isotopic abundances, cosmic ray exposure ages, radioactive dating techniques, etc.), and by the astronauts themselves both in situ on the lunar surface and after their return to Earth.

The TMLWF crowd usually falls back on the typical large and complex, self sustaining conspiracy theory arguments, including the grand notion that they were faked by elaborate Hollywood style film fakery on some secret sound stage. Lets stop to ponder this for a moment. Think of the best special effects movies that you have ever seen. Now think of the inconsistencies and visual errors that even the casual and uninformed audience can see in these films. Now think back to 1969 and the movies that were made then. Could we have produced such fakery that it would not only stand up to the scrutiny of a 1969 audience, but also a whole generation of scientists familiar with the geologic study of celestial bodies? In fact, the only ones to find fault in this record is a small "cottage industry" group of TMLWFers.​
And who is this person that seems to have an answer for every claim you have made about a moon landing hoax?
I am a Planetary Scientist at the University of Arizona's Lunar and Planetary Laboratory where I work on the Spacewatch Project to survey for small objects in the solar system, especially Near-Earth Objects and comets. I watched the Apollo Moonlandings on TV as a young boy, following every crew as they traveled to the moon and back and explored the lunar surface. It seemed like magic to an 8 or 9 year old, but as I grew, the Apollo program spurred my interest in science and I ate up everything I could about Apollo. My present interest in Apollo is historical. I love the details of how and why the Apollo spacecraft and the Saturn V launch vehicle worked as well as the details of the lunar exploration. I watched astronauts setting out experiments, picking up moonrocks, taking pictures and so forth, especially during the last few flights to the moon, but it wasn't until later that I really understood how and why they would pick a particular rock to sample or crater to visit. Understanding Apollo has lead to a great appreciation of it as well as a firm belief in the genuineness of the moonlandings. Everything fits together far too well to be a fake as some of the hoax proponents such as Mr. Overstreet in his website imply. Flying to the moon was not faked. It was not magic. It was engineering and applied science. And it was a spectacular achievment! 
Jim Scotti​
Don't claim to have looked at both sides if you haven't heard of any of these objections to your claims. These claims have been going around for a long time and all have logical, rational answers but true to the conspiracy nature of this topic, evidence to the contrary is disregarded as part of the conspiracy. If no amount of evidence will convince you, then you are in denial.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 13, 2012)

why dont they point the hubble at the moon and settle this this debate


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 13, 2012)

this is two separate landing areas look at the mountains in the back


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 13, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> why dont they point the hubble at the moon and settle this this debate


Probably because there is really no debate. NASA and Hubble engineers don't have anything to prove. I posted pictures from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. Higher res pictures are forthcoming but I doubt Hubble will be able to see more clearly than the LROC. 

Regarding the 15 points you posted, among the ones that have already been debunked, it is very clear that this person is not very bright and doesn't have very good understanding of the moon, let alone lighting and photography. Ignoring the lies about astronauts like Armstrong not giving interviews, just ponder question 5 for a minute and tell me if you can figure out what's wrong with his premise.

*5. The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side where they landed. There is no way they could have rejected the heat for as long as 72 hours as they claim on some Apollo missions. How long do you think you could keep your car cool on a hot day running off battery power?
*


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 13, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> this is two separate landing areas look at the mountains in the back


What image numbers are these? How do I know there was no alterations? I'm pulling my images direct from ALSJ.


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 13, 2012)

Here. I'll give you a hint:

5. The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side where they landed. There is no way they could have rejected the heat for as long as 72 hours as they claim on some Apollo missions. How long do you think you could keep your car cool on a hot day running off battery power?


----------



## elduece (Feb 13, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> *15 Reasons Why Man Has Never Set Foot on The Moon*
> 
> [HR][/HR]
> 
> ...


You already know that Russians had the first man spacewalk, first woman, satellite etc. But all of a sudden USA claims to put a man on the moon in response to Soviet accomplishments and basically undercutting rpevious Russian space achievements. With this in mind and if the landings were faked(although I do find the Apollo 16 boondoggle debatable), where's the Soviet rebuttal? I think the Russians had more than enough radar capabilities and more reason to be the first to openly flame this Amerikan hoax.

Oh wait a minute! I forgot! 

The truth is that the shadow Zionist rulers in the USSR and Nazi Amerika collaborated and orchestrated the space/military industrial complex during the cold war that the whole time!


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 13, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> why dont they point the hubble at the moon and settle this this debate



What would be the point? Optic resolution knows an absolute limit: diffraction. For Hubble, the geometric linmit is about 0.05 arcsecond, and the practical limit has proven to be 0.1 arcsecond. (The optics were polished to such near-perfection.) At lunar distances, 0.1 arcsecond converts to a minimum feature size of about six hundred feet. The Lem main stage is about twenty feet across, so you'd need to orbit an optically near-perfect mirror (to Hubble spec, but scaled up) close to 300 feet in diameter! just to see the Lem as a barely-resolved smudge.
They sent imaging orbiters to the Moon since Apollo. Clementine was cheap and dirty, and when it was pointed at the Apollo 15 landing site, it saw this.
http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html#clem
To get an equivalent photo quality from earth, you'd need an optical mirror bigger than Arecibo, placed above the atmosphere. 

Other, better imagers have been sent since, such as LRO, the lunar reconnaissance orbiter. Better resolution; correspondingly better results.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

I canot believe that this thread has deteriorated into a tin-hat snowball fight. cn


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 13, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> Here. I'll give you a hint:
> 
> 5. The surface of the moon is a vacuum. The landing module would have been heated to 250 degrees on the light side where they landed. There is no way they could have rejected the heat for as long as 72 hours as they claim on some Apollo missions. How long do you think you could keep your car cool on a hot day running off battery power?



I have never encountered a hot day that ran off battery power.

As to the original question, my answer would be primitively simple ... dump the heat out the Lem's *shaded* side. Its equilibrium temp was minus two hundred. It worked a treat for the CSM ... in fact they had a slow-rotating "spit roast" mode to keep the temp in the spacecraft uniform and comfy. cncn


----------



## researchkitty (Feb 13, 2012)

CN -- What area is your postdoctoral research in? I'm going out on a limb guessing you have a specific area of study..........


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 13, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> I have never encountered a hot day that ran off battery power.
> 
> As to the original question, my answer would be primitively simple ... dump the heat out the Lem's *shaded* side. Its equilibrium temp was minus two hundred. It worked a treat for the CSM ... in fact they had a slow-rotating "spit roast" mode to keep the temp in the spacecraft uniform and comfy. cncn


The mistake is thinking there is a light side and dark side. From earth perspective the moon has a near and a far side and the far side is perpetually facing away from us but the moon still gets a day and a night, each lasting over 14 earth days. When the astronauts get to the moon, they do so in early lunar morning when the sun was only 10 degrees or so above the horizon and when they left 3 days later on the longest missions, it was still early in the lunar morning and the sun wasn't even half way up in the sky yet. The low angle of the sun at that time in the lunar morning only heats up the surface to about 100F. Therefore the entire claim that the landing module had to dissipate 250F heat for 3 earth days is just wrong. That's also the job of the reflective material, if the majority of the EM energy was reflected, the surfaces below the reflective material would not need to be cooled significantly.


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 13, 2012)

Lol, Mindphuk, I didn't even consider that because the moon always has a lighted side, except for the one hour in ten thousand when it's eclipsed. 
I do remember that they chose early lunar morning for heat management reasons. Heat management was essentially radiative ... no convection in a vacuum, and conduction through the landing gear was effectively zero. They used several layers of that gilded wrap to contain/reject radiant heat. 

Fun lunar factette: the sun moves in a diurnal track that lasts the month, but the earth stays in the same patch of lunar sky, give or take a few degrees. 
cn


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 13, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> What would be the point? Optic resolution knows an absolute limit: diffraction. For Hubble, the geometric linmit is about 0.05 arcsecond, and the practical limit has proven to be 0.1 arcsecond. (The optics were polished to such near-perfection.) At lunar distances, 0.1 arcsecond converts to a minimum feature size of about six hundred feet. The Lem main stage is about twenty feet across, so you'd need to orbit an optically near-perfect mirror (to Hubble spec, but scaled up) close to 300 feet in diameter! just to see the Lem as a barely-resolved smudge.
> They sent imaging orbiters to the Moon since Apollo. Clementine was cheap and dirty, and when it was pointed at the Apollo 15 landing site, it saw this.
> http://stupendous.rit.edu/richmond/answers/lunar_lander.html#clem
> To get an equivalent photo quality from earth, you'd need an optical mirror bigger than Arecibo, placed above the atmosphere.
> ...


you can see other galaxies with the hubble why couldn't you see the moon?


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 13, 2012)

mindphuk said:


> The mistake is thinking there is a light side and dark side. From earth perspective the moon has a near and a far side and the far side is perpetually facing away from us but the moon still gets a day and a night, each lasting over 14 earth days. When the astronauts get to the moon, they do so in early lunar morning when the sun was only 10 degrees or so above the horizon and when they left 3 days later on the longest missions, it was still early in the lunar morning and the sun wasn't even half way up in the sky yet. The low angle of the sun at that time in the lunar morning only heats up the surface to about 100F. Therefore the entire claim that the landing module had to dissipate 250F heat for 3 earth days is just wrong. That's also the job of the reflective material, if the majority of the EM energy was reflected, the surfaces below the reflective material would not need to be cooled significantly.


that does make sense


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 13, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> you can see other galaxies with the hubble why couldn't you see the moon?


You can see the moon down to a feature size of 200 meters. Not enough to resolve the landing sites. 
Those other galaxies are arcminutes across! Even the extremely distant ones subtend several arcseconds. cn


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 13, 2012)

Look all im saying is you can point out little specs and say this is where all day long but nothing is clear. you can see anything from those photos.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 13, 2012)

ok lets get off the moon subject for minute 
anyone ever see a ufo


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 13, 2012)

im not talking about a strange light either. a actual ufo


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 13, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> ok lets get off the moon subject for minute
> anyone ever see a ufo



As the thread originator, I will ask - let's please stick to IFOs. cn

<edit> Lotsa UFO and UFO-related threads in the Spirituality subforum.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 13, 2012)

Well if IFOs are what you want to talk about, what is two car lengths long, one car length wide, makes zero noise,built in triangular panels, bright spot lights in the front,red slow blinking light in the back,and oh ya it can read your mind? ok I wont stomp on your thread. Its not that I'm not interested because if I wasn't than I wouldn't have posted.


----------



## ginjawarrior (Feb 13, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> Well if IFOs are what you want to talk about, what is two car lengths long, one car length wide, makes zero noise,built in triangular panels, bright spot lights in the front,red slow blinking light in the back,and oh ya it can read your mind? ok I wont stomp on your thread. Its not that I'm not interested because if I wasn't than I wouldn't have posted.


santa smoking a cigar while rudolf pulls him thru the air while checking to see who should be on his naughty list?


----------



## marcopolo123 (Feb 14, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> I dont think we have been to the moon.if you look at the pictures of the lem the area under the main thruster is undisturbed. even at 1700 pounds it would still weigh 170 or so. how could you set it down so nicely without breaking something or disturbing the fine moon dust?infact under the lem from the front leg back seems to be distorted you cant make anything out. you see what looks like small craters but its clearly a copied and repetitive image. and I also think the wtc was imploded if you look at the videos close up you can see the demo charges going off in sequence all the way up the building. plus by looking at the rubble you can see the main beams have been gut close to a 45 degree angle. it fell exactly how the demo team planned it. and what happened to the 30 tucks full of gold? they only found one .



dude your awsome!!!


they cut those columns at 45 degrees to make the building "walk" as those controlled demo guys say, so it implodes into itself not outside of its footing


----------



## ginjawarrior (Feb 14, 2012)

marcopolo123 said:


> dude your awsome!!!
> 
> 
> they cut those columns at 45 degrees to make the building "walk" as those controlled demo guys say, so it implodes into itself not outside of its footing


now your just embarrassing yourselves 
the image your talking about 





now if you'd bothered researching even a tiny bit you would have found this





now i know you guys think youtube is best place for research so a tiny bit of looking you would have found this (you'l want to watch till the end for best bit...)
[youtube]ySHgiUxnLC0[/youtube]
then if you used a tiny bit of common sense you would have realised that neither of the towers actually fell into its own footprint as all the surrounding building had extensive damage from being hit by falling skyscraper






now once you 2 stop patting yourselves on each others backs for your shared delusion why dont you take talk of 911 out of a SPACE THREAD 

theres plenty of threads for 911 like this one [thread]461713[/thread]


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 14, 2012)

Back to space: the news is grim. Nothing but retrenchment. They have killed a Mars sample-return effort for the time being. 

http://www.space.com/14551-nasa-budget-2013-request-obama-mars.html
cn


----------



## OnlyDopesSmokeDope (Feb 15, 2012)

i got one for you ufo nutjobs. you think aliens have been to earth, to do this they will need to be very advanced yes! so my question is this. why would they need lights? we have infrared cameras.


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 15, 2012)

OnlyDopesSmokeDope said:


> i got one for you ufo nutjobs. you think aliens have been to earth, to do this they will need to be very advanced yes! so my question is this. why would they need lights? we have infrared cameras.


Maybe they have a life cycle like moths ... and they do seem to cluster near Vegas.
The hole in that beery theory is not enough Flying saucerses being pulled up in the nets of the Japanese night-fishing fleets. cn


----------



## OnlyDopesSmokeDope (Feb 16, 2012)

nah, more like we have idiots living here with overactive imaginations.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 16, 2012)

OnlyDopesSmokeDope said:


> i got one for you ufo nutjobs. you think aliens have been to earth, to do this they will need to be very advanced yes! so my question is this. why would they need lights? we have infrared cameras.


to look out for trees to shine in your eyes so you cant see it. I know of at least 5 people that have seen one real close.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 16, 2012)

sorry cannabineer I have to defend myself from trolls. much respect to you sir. this is my last post on your thread ill start one of my own. watch this u tube. look close at the sand falling off the astronauts boots it falls faster than the man himself. not to mention the wires holding them up.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE


----------



## mindphuk (Feb 16, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> sorry cannabineer I have to defend myself from trolls. much respect to you sir. this is my last post on your thread ill start one of my own. watch this u tube. look close at the sand falling off the astronauts boots it falls faster than the man himself. not to mention the wires holding them up.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE


Funny how you accuse others of being trolls then immediately post a controversial video with problems with it's claims but then mention you won't post any more here. That, my friend, is acting like a troll.


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Feb 16, 2012)

if you want to chat about it go to the thread below CNs post. I don't want to destroy the mans thread.


----------



## AMileHigh (Feb 16, 2012)

I'm sorry but I love going to kennedy space center, and to go there and look at an actual saturn v.... i have a very hard time believing its a hoax.


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 16, 2012)

There's another in Houston... I went on haj to see it in '03. I believe the Smithsonian has a third, not currently on display. i remember reading about extensive, expensive restoration being done on that one. cn


----------



## OnlyDopesSmokeDope (Feb 18, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> to look out for trees to shine in your eyes so you cant see it. I know of at least 5 people that have seen one real close.





fail. i don't mean to troll. its just i don't believe aliens have been to this planet. just like i don't believe in any god or ghosts or any crap like that. i think stupid people see something they can't explain and instead of doing research and coming to a logical conclusion they pin it on a easy target. it was aliens, it was god...

don't get me wrong, i don't think this is the only planet with life on it, be it single cell or sentient life. why i don't think they have been to this planet is the numbers. the universe has been aroud for what? 13 billion years? now a billion is an astronomical number. if you started counting the second you were born and done nothing but count your whole life, no eating or sleeping, you wouldn't reach a billion. so what are the chances of there being life that is advanced enouth to get here right now at this point in time. the nearest solar system that we think could sustain life is so far away, traverling at 5,000 miles a second it would take you 300 years to reach it. to say aliens have been to this planet once is one thing but saying they have been here many times is just crazy. i'm not smart, most of what i based my opinion on is taken from documentaries i've seen over the years and my memory isn't to good so if some of what i said isn't quite right, i'm sorry.


----------



## Brick Top (Feb 18, 2012)

OnlyDopesSmokeDope said:


> its just i don't believe aliens have been to this planet.


Whenever someone claims to have been abducted or seen aliens it almost always tends to be Zeke and Bubba who were out in the swamp tending ta' their still. 

If aliens are so intelligent and visit our planet why don't they pay a visit to Stephen Hawking or someone who might have some chance of being able to communicate at least slightly up to their level?




> just like i don't believe in any god or ghosts or any crap like that.


I won't comment on God, but until some point early in 1995 I would have said the idea of ghosts or demons or whatever was total crap. 

But after the last 17-years of various totally inexplicable things occurring in my home, starting roughly one year after my mother died in my home, I now believe that something, I don't know what, but something like ghosts or demons or whatever do exist. 

To many things have occurred here for me to be able to continue to deny that 'something' other than, or beyond, what people normally accept exists does in fact exist. 

Anyone can very easily deny such things, until they experience such things on a somewhat regular basis over many years. Then you tend to become if not a believer, at least someone who will very readily accept the possibility.


----------



## OnlyDopesSmokeDope (Feb 18, 2012)

with ghosts again its the numbers for me. billions of people have died, if there were ghosts they would be everywhere. i'm not calling you a liar, just i have to see with my own eyes to believe.


----------



## blimey (Feb 19, 2012)

I'm not going to read through this to see if it's been said but I think space needs to be privatized. Competition causes advancement.


----------



## Brick Top (Feb 19, 2012)

OnlyDopesSmokeDope said:


> with ghosts again its the numbers for me. billions of people have died, if there were ghosts they would be everywhere. i'm not calling you a liar, just i have to see with my own eyes to believe.



Your position relies on the assumption that everyone who died would remain behind as a ghost rather than, as some believe, only those with some unfinished business or a reason or a cause end up remaining behind as a ghost. 

And I also did say ghost or demons. I would not swear to what or which could be hanging around here. 

I can understand your position of; "i'm not calling you a liar, just i have to see with my own eyes to believe." I said the same thing until I was roughly 40-years old and then began to experience the inexplicable in my own home and have it continue now for 18-years.

That sort of thing doesn't happen to most. But to those it does happen to, they are forced to accept that there is more than the eye normally sees and the mind normally is willing and capable of accepting. 

Two friends of mine, longtime friends, will no longer visit me after the scares they had here. After being horrified one of them slept in his pickup truck in my driveway because he would not spend the night in my house. He left the next day as quickly as he could load up his things and go. 

In neither case did I tell either of them ahead of time about my house, so it was not like a seed was planted in their minds that caused their imaginations to run wild. They just experienced things they were not capable of dealing with, things that were outside the limits of their beliefs.

Myself, I enjoy the things that occur here. I find myself wondering what will happen next. If it will be something new or one of the things that have happened many times and are almost common occurrences. If something doesn't happen for a while I am actually disappointed and hope it will not be long before the next thing happens.


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 19, 2012)

blimey said:


> I'm not going to read through this to see if it's been said but I think space needs to be privatized. Competition causes advancement.


Competition in pursuit of a market causes advancement. So far, the viable market in space has been emplacement of communication satellites, and the chemical-launcher technology does not have much room for improvement. I mean, the Russians are using an adaptation of the design that first reached orbit as their (and now our) single active man-rated space launcher! cn


----------



## cannabineer (Feb 19, 2012)

Brick Top said:


> Your position relies on the assumption that everyone who died would remain behind as a ghost rather than, as some believe, only those with some unfinished business or a reason or a cause end up remaining behind as a ghost.
> 
> And I also did say ghost or demons. I would not swear to what or which could be hanging around here.
> 
> ...


~can't resist~ That's the spirit. cn


----------



## Doer (Mar 16, 2012)

All I can say to the conspiracy folks of all ilk, is Who Cares?

And it is a lot less scary to believe that some group planned this and tried to make us believe a falsehood, than to believe it really happened.

The CIA did it. Cool, we are in control and have something to bitch about. 
A vicious, successful attack against our economy. Too Scary! See part A.

We send volunteers to the moon on what could have easily been a disaster for them and the Cold War. Too Scary? Figure out the fake. 

Then the movement gathers the ninnies. It self perpetuates.

It's a primal notion of control against the things that go bump in the night. Reality or Religion. It's the kick of being right when everyone else is wrong. A cult. Ego.


----------



## elduece (Mar 20, 2012)

Just like threesomes with trailer park midgets and anime porn with cute little tiny chineys being rape by monstrous tentacles, these conspiracy theories are made just as available/worsened by the Internet.


----------



## Doer (Mar 23, 2012)

cannabineer said:


> The USA currently has no manned spacecraft capable of launching from/returning to the Earth's surface! Can you believe it?
> What do you imagine it will take to return to at least a manned (crewed, if you're feeling extra pc) vehicle to orbit?
> -technology
> -funding
> ...


I firmly believe there are secret accords between govts. And I think we are in an effort with Russia, since Clinton, to allow China to catch up and become spacefaring, at the same pace as India. The ticket seems to be a module for the ISS. When we have, along with Europe, 5 Gross Domestic Productions into it, then we will be ready to have moon bases, etc. Notice how quickly Obama ruled out the moon and suggested straight to Mars. He's know that can't happen without the Lunar practice.


----------



## blackvegi (Mar 28, 2012)

[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Born too late for earth exploration.
Born too early for space exploration.

fbm[/FONT]


----------



## Doer (Apr 22, 2012)

maybe not....I like this idea. Sit on the moon, in comfort and tel-operate mining equipment on a captured asteroid. They got the right stuff involved, it looks like.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303513404577356190967904210.html


----------



## researchkitty (Apr 22, 2012)

This is a little out of my league, I'm not too familiar with asteroid composition, but since everything is star dust, what would we mine on an asteroid that isnt already on our moon?


----------



## Doer (Apr 22, 2012)

I'd say because there are no treaties on asteroid exploration. Isn't the moon part of the Sol System Nature Preserve?  We have treaties of No Ownership or something. You can still by a Lunar tract, ie, a worthless piece of paper, today. 

Who knows about later?

For asteroids also the mineral content can be fairly pure, like a chuck of Nickel or Iron, or Gold. Carbonates, gases,
glasses, diamonds? Who knows? The tel-presence lag problem may be moot with self directed robotics.

Of course, the near Earth asteroids may be slim pickings. It's a whole new era of Solar Prospecting.


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 22, 2012)

researchkitty said:


> This is a little out of my league, I'm not too familiar with asteroid composition, but since everything is star dust, what would we mine on an asteroid that isnt already on our moon?


The moon is almost all basalt, which is a very boring rock.
The asteroids have the elements that are uncommon on our surface and the Moon's, notably heavies like rhenium, iridium, gold, uranium, thorium ... and extra lights like helium-3. 
The asteroids also have carbon compounds which the Moon entirely lacks. But in the longest term, the real payoff will be in the Kuiper belt where there's lots and lots of CHNO, the basic stuff of life. cn


----------



## hmmmmm..... (Apr 22, 2012)

are you people saying you wouldn't like to sit on the moon and smoke a spliff?? obviously a keen inventor would have to come up with a way of lighting the spliff or maybe make a mini spliif suit with auto lighter which you can just connect streight to the suit


----------



## Doer (Apr 23, 2012)

I think coughing into your faceplate would be a drag. But, as I read in Si-Fi, how about finding or making a large underground chamber? Fill it with air to a good pressure. Then using self powered ornothopters instead of hang gliders fly around in there smoking during human powered flight on the Moon.


----------



## researchkitty (Apr 23, 2012)

hmmmmm..... said:


> are you people saying you wouldn't like to sit on the moon and smoke a spliff?? obviously a keen inventor would have to come up with a way of lighting the spliff or maybe make a mini spliif suit with auto lighter which you can just connect streight to the suit


Sure, except there's no air to make your spliff light up. A battery powered oil vape, however........................


----------



## ismokealotofpot (Apr 29, 2012)

I thought people were buying lots on the moon already?


----------



## cannabineer (Apr 29, 2012)

ismokealotofpot said:


> I thought people were buying lots on the moon already?


Those deeds are about as valuable as the ones being sold for the Brooklyn Bridge. cn


----------



## skudz47 (May 4, 2012)

I would be really interested about your guys opinion on John Searl
John searl claimed to make flying saucers back around the 1960s

[video=youtube;y5t0GhIVb4s]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5t0GhIVb4s[/video]


http://www.scribd.com/doc/75278338/SEG-Mock-Up-Verses-SEG-Prototype-Stages-of-R-D


----------



## abe supercro (May 19, 2012)

Interesting that strange occurrences have been happening, but could it be that these odd events have led to your disappearance? Or are you on vacation and shopping retirement real estate in the upper peninsula of Michigan?? Hope life is treating you ok BT.




Brick Top said:


> Your position relies on the assumption that everyone who died would remain behind as a ghost rather than, as some believe, only those with some unfinished business or a reason or a cause end up remaining behind as a ghost.
> 
> And I also did say ghost or demons. I would not swear to what or which could be hanging around here.
> 
> ...


----------



## Trolling (Sep 28, 2012)

Couldn't find a UFO thread, could of sworn I seen one a few weeks ago but search brought up nothing.


I don't believe in UFOs but this was spotted on Google Earth. It may look like a saucer but the blurryness I think fooled some people. My only thought tho about what else could be would be the sun was near the clouds (not sure what time of day it was) and the outline of the cloud made it look like a flying UFO saucer.

What do you guys think? Also you can Google Earth Jacksonville Texas and view steet view and pan around. I can't get Google Earth on this phone so I can't get a good view of the surroundings =\.


http://wap.myfoxdfw.com/w/main/story/74295829/


----------

