Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,549 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,715,564
Pageviews Today: 2,228,942Threads Today: 405Posts Today: 8,654
03:50 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1194852
United States
01/25/2011 09:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars
I found this article about the 500 day mission, a simulation for 6 astronauts going to Mars and back with two days spent on the planet. In the article appears this:

"A real mission to Mars is decades away because of its huge costs and major technological challenges, particularly the task of creating a compact shield that would protect the crew from deadly space radiation.

Why aren't they using the same "protection" they used going to the Moon?

Full article here:

[link to news.yahoo.com]
Dino-B.C.

User ID: 1205394
Canada
01/25/2011 09:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars
Why aren't they using the same "protection" they used going to the Moon?

You mean 1/4 sheet metal? Because it doesn't work.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1241078
Mexico
01/25/2011 10:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars
The moon missions were faked, sad but true.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1149306
United States
01/25/2011 11:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars
I found this article about the 500 day mission, a simulation for 6 astronauts going to Mars and back with two days spent on the planet. In the article appears this:

"A real mission to Mars is decades away because of its huge costs and major technological challenges, particularly the task of creating a compact shield that would protect the crew from deadly space radiation.

Why aren't they using the same "protection" they used going to the Moon?

Full article here:

[link to news.yahoo.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1194852

You think there just might be a different exposure for 500 days compared to 12?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1126839
United Kingdom
01/25/2011 11:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars
I found this article about the 500 day mission, a simulation for 6 astronauts going to Mars and back with two days spent on the planet. In the article appears this:

"A real mission to Mars is decades away because of its huge costs and major technological challenges, particularly the task of creating a compact shield that would protect the crew from deadly space radiation.

Why aren't they using the same "protection" they used going to the Moon?

Full article here:

[link to news.yahoo.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1194852

You think there just might be a different exposure for 500 days compared to 12?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1149306


No. Radiation is radiation. There are no safe doses and effects are random in that you could be out there for only one day and get a lethal dose or you could be out there for 10 years and never get the lethal zap.

Hence the 12day version *should* be at least something to build on.

Very smart catch there OP.
G
User ID: 1238018
United States
01/25/2011 11:19 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars
NASA Ames Director Simon “Pete” Worden revealed Saturday that NASA Ames has “just started a project with DARPA called the Hundred Year Starship,” with $1 million funding from DARPA and $100K from NASA.

[link to www.kurzweilai.net]

Talks with private investors such as Larry Page of Google are under way. One interesting notion begin pushed here is the use of microwave thermal thrusters with beamed propulsion during the launch phase.

---------------------------------------------------

Personally I think NASA is a red herring. I believe all of the real space exploration is being done by the military in top secret anti-gravity ships like the TAW-50

---------------------------------------------------

Developed during the early 1990s, the capabilities of this war-bird are
jaw-dropping. And the technology shows that the Defense
Department did not fail to utilize what it learned combing
through the wreckage of various UFO crashes.

The TAW-50 has speed capabilities well in excess of Mach 50,
a number the contractor calls "a very conservative
estimate." Its actual speed "is classified." Mach 1 is 1,225
kilometers per hour, (approximately 748 mph). That means
that the TAW-50 is capable of moving way faster than 38,000
mph. In comparison, the velocity required to escape Earth's
gravity is 25,000 mph. And yes, the TAW-50 does go into
space.

The TAW-50 has a SCRAM (supersonic ramjet) propulsion system
for passing through the outer atmosphere.

The TAW-50 has a crew of four. Nevertheless, the TAW-50
flies so fast that it requires computers to fly it. These
were developed by American Computer Company, who derived
them from its Valkyrie XB/9000 AI [artificial intelligence]
Guidance series. They utilize a RISC Milspec Superchip.
"There are 180 of them in the flight control system, and 64
more in the weapons guidance system," the contractor
reported.

It can carry a combined payload of glide bombs and a package
of MIRV (Multiple Independently-targeted Reentry Vehicles),
mil-speak for a group of intercontinental ballistic
missiles, each of which can seek out and strike a different
target. The MIRV pack also contains reentry-capable balloon
countermeasures to make it very difficult for laser and
other defense weapons to track down where the real MIRVs are
and intercept them.

The TAW-50 is armed with its own Kill Laser system, which
can track and immolate SAM (Surface-to-Air missiles), STTA
(Surface-To-Trans-Atmosphere missiles), ATA (Air-To-Air
missiles), and ATTA (Air-To-Trans-Air missiles). The
TAW-50's killer lasers can also knock down high-performance
fighter interceptors. The TAW's Kill Laser is much smaller
than the earlier 1980s-era SDI (Star Wars program) models,
and has a miniaturized cooling core and 500 times the
wattage. The contractor said it "uses a spontaneous
nucleonic burst to trigger the lasing [laser] effect."

In addition, the TAW-50 is armed with micro-super-explosive
HyperDart missiles. These are just a little larger than
ordinary aircraft cannon ammunition, but travel at
hypersonic speed for up to three minutes, and have enormous
explosive capability. One HyperDart can blow apart a MiG
fighter anywhere within 20 feet of the HyperDart. The TAW-50
carries several hundred HyperDarts.

Because the TAW-50 is designed to operate in space, it has
on board a two-day air supply. This air supply can be
extended by using its scoop system and traveling into the
upper atmosphere.

The TAW-50's power supply is provided by a small nuclear
power generator that the contractor said is "Normal-Inert".
The contractor said that the spaceplane uses
electromagnetoferrometric power generation by the immersion
of pellets in heavy water (deuterium) and specially-designed
coil superconductive magnets, which yield enormous amounts
of free electrons when placed in an immersion which has been
triggered into an oscillating field state flux.

The TAW-50 utilizes electrogravitics to maintain its own
artificial gravity while in weightless space, as well as to
nullify the vehicle's mass during operations.

The contractor did not reveal the size of the space
fighter-bomber except to say, "It's a pretty big thing."

The performance of the TAW-50 makes it virtually
impossible to defend against. It can hide in orbit many
hundreds of miles into space, orbiting at times at 22,000 mph.
Then, without warning, it can dive straight down through the
atmosphere at over 38,000 miles per hour on an 80-degree
attack vector, reverse direction within 150 feet of the ground
with very little loss of motion and without a glide
turn, and
almost instantly go vertically straight up at over 38,000 mph
until long after it leaves the atmosphere and resumes orbiting
in space.

The contractor noted, "Those [electro-] gravitics allow it to
change its mass to almost nothing in a moment, and reverse
direction in a second, increase its acceleration to so many
times G [Earth's gravity] it's not funny, yet they are able
to nearly nullify the G-force on the pilots. They [the
electrogravitics] are fourth generation, with the ability to
bring it to a complete standstill in under 2 milliseconds,
if need be, without crushing the pilots, and keep it there
for quite some time."

The contractor notes, "It's far too fast for tracking radars.
" And, he adds, what military aims its radars straight up?

The TAW-50 can be refueled and rearmed in orbit by docking
with the secret undeclared Military Space Station that is in
orbit. (See: www.drboylan.com... ) The
entire refueling and rearming procedure takes under 10
minutes. Who mans the gas pumps? Military astronauts trained
at the Secret Air Force Academy, located in the hills west
of the official Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs, CO.
These military astronauts rotate duty by traveling to and
from Vandenburg Air Force Base on other military antigravity
vehicles. (See: www.drboylan.com... ) The
Space Shuttles have carried the arming platforms
("classified Defense Dept. payloads") up to the secret
Military Space Station. The contractor reported that with a
few extra tanks of LOX (liquid oxygen), the TAW-50 could fly
to the Moon and back.
G
User ID: 1238018
United States
01/25/2011 11:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars
The capabilities of top secret craft are always far in advance of anything that's common knowledge. The stealth Bomber and the SR-71 blackbird are practically antiques now, just imagine the insane amount of advancement that must have taken place over the last few decades. With the advancement of computer technology, computer aided design, virtual testing, advanced meta-materials etc the ships of today that we know NOTHING about must be beyond belief.

Only a few days ago the military launched the largest rocket ever launched from the west coast USA carrying a secret payload into space. Hm. what could it be.

I have a buddy who works at cape Canaveral and they launch things all the time. You don't hear about it much but there is a lot going up into space these days. I swear, every other week he would complain about working overtime on some launch or another.

I firmly believe in anti-gravity technology. Just look at the lifter project website and you will see it's very very easy. Now throw the worlds biggest defense budget at the subject for 30 years and I would be very surprised if they DON'T have working nuclear powered anti gravity based ships that can quickly get to the moon and potentially to mars even.

I remember 6 or seven years ago, reading an article about a scientist in the 1940's who developed a mathematical model for a functional warp drive for faster than light travel and the article said the military expressed interest in building a prototype based on his equations. They said it would take 4 or 5 years to get the working prototype ready for testing in space. Even if there were delays, I think this has ALREADY HAPPENED!

People scoff at talk of anti-gravity but the military takes these things very seriously. That dude Hutchinson sp? discovered how to generate an anti-gravity field in the 70's using a number of Tesla coils to generate the field and through extensive trial and error. The military immediately moved in and confiscated his entire lab.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 9463
United States
01/26/2011 10:54 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars
I found this article about the 500 day mission, a simulation for 6 astronauts going to Mars and back with two days spent on the planet. In the article appears this:

"A real mission to Mars is decades away because of its huge costs and major technological challenges, particularly the task of creating a compact shield that would protect the crew from deadly space radiation.

Why aren't they using the same "protection" they used going to the Moon?

Full article here:

[link to news.yahoo.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1194852

You think there just might be a different exposure for 500 days compared to 12?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1149306


No. Radiation is radiation. There are no safe doses and effects are random in that you could be out there for only one day and get a lethal dose or you could be out there for 10 years and never get the lethal zap.

Hence the 12day version *should* be at least something to build on.

Very smart catch there OP.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1126839

You really have no idea what you are talking about. Radiation damage is cumulative. Plus the chances of getting hit with a large solar flare are small for 12 days but almost definite for 500.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1243172
South Africa
01/26/2011 11:00 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars
Proof that the world has been dumbed down, to such an extend that what was possible before now seems impossible.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 718396
Egypt
01/26/2011 11:03 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars
00000
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 87490
United States
08/26/2012 11:55 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars
Why aren't they using the same "protection" they used going to the Moon?

You mean 1/4 sheet metal? Because it doesn't work.
 Quoting: Dino-B.C.

I saw the module at the langley research center where my dad worked in the AF.I was a kid and I said "How could that thing land on the moon when it's covered in aluminum foil".bump
smartcooky

User ID: 19042427
New Zealand
10/18/2012 02:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars
Why aren't they using the same "protection" they used going to the Moon?

You mean 1/4 sheet metal? Because it doesn't work.
 Quoting: Dino-B.C.

I saw the module at the langley research center where my dad worked in the AF.I was a kid and I said "How could that thing land on the moon when it's covered in aluminum foil".bump
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 87490



How could a four hundred ton Boeing 747-400 fly when all its covered with is flimsy 3mm aluminium alloy sheet?

Answer that, and you answer your question.
Those who agree with me may not always be right, nonetheless, I admire their astuteness - Cullen Hightower
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 25750393
Belgium
10/18/2012 03:08 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars
hahah linky ''coverred'' already.. lololol
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
10/19/2012 11:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars
No. Radiation is radiation. There are no safe doses and effects are random in that you could be out there for only one day and get a lethal dose or you could be out there for 10 years and never get the lethal zap.

Hence the 12day version *should* be at least something to build on.

Very smart catch there OP.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1126839




Apparently you are dead, then. The 40 uSv/yr from kr40 in your own bones polished you off long ago.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 4443279
Finland
10/19/2012 12:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars
The Apollo mission crews weren't completely protected from radiation, but the exposure was limited by the heavy shielding. If they really did the missions then it shouldn't be too difficult to build on that, considering the Apollo program was achieved with ancient technology. Smartphones are more advanced than the craft they used to land on the moon.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 9395903
United States
10/19/2012 12:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars


Wrong. Radiation exposure is cumulative and statistically, there will be far more exposure in a 50x longer mission.

To take your argument to the absurd extreme, it's just as dangerous to spend three seconds in space as three hundred years.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 9395903
United States
10/19/2012 12:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars
No. Radiation is radiation. There are no safe doses and effects are random in that you could be out there for only one day and get a lethal dose or you could be out there for 10 years and never get the lethal zap.

Hence the 12day version *should* be at least something to build on.

Very smart catch there OP.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1126839


Wrong. Radiation exposure is cumulative and statistically, there will be far more exposure in a 50x longer mission.

To take your argument to the absurd extreme, it's just as dangerous to spend three seconds in space as three hundred years.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 23748411
United States
10/19/2012 12:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars
The moon missions were faked, sad but true.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1241078


an you are a third world degenerate so whats your point, border hopper
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 17421882
United States
10/19/2012 12:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars
...and one giant LIE for mankind.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
10/19/2012 02:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: MOON LANDING NOT A HOAX? Check out what they're saying about Going to Mars
The Apollo mission crews weren't completely protected from radiation, but the exposure was limited by the heavy shielding. If they really did the missions then it shouldn't be too difficult to build on that, considering the Apollo program was achieved with ancient technology. Smartphones are more advanced than the craft they used to land on the moon.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 4443279


The problem is we're mostly dealing with mature technologies. The heavy lifter for all space exploration is still liquid fuel rockets, which Goddard got working in the 20's, Von Braun got working reliably in the 1940's, and the Saturn V first stage managed to scale it up by the mid 60's. There isn't anywhere new to go with liquid fuel. Indeed, most of the changes lately have been towards less energetic formulations which are cheaper and more environmentally benign.

About the only major wrinkle coming down the pipe in liquid fueled surface-to-orbit is multi-mode engines; airbreathing/SRAMs in the first minutes of flight, then switching to oxidizer. At the very best, though, this is about the same leap as the hybrid engine makes over the internal combustion engine; save a few tens of percents better compression and more complete combustion, and of course vastly improved emissions, most of us are still tooling around in our cars with the same engines that rolled of Henry Ford's assembly line. And the Prius owners are doing not quite twice as good on gas mileage, for a cost of much less acceleration!



Similarly, our understanding of how radiation impacts our biology has improved, but the task of ameliorating it is still brute-force. Think of it this way; people were getting hurt by radar installations in Word War II. Today, a good fifty years after the domestication of the Microwave Oven, the best we can still do against someone microwaving their own fool head is to put a safety switch on it. There is no magic pill, forcefield, magic plastic, space warp, or anything else to make microwave radiation not hurt people. Nothing that has happened in particle physics or computational sciences or developmental biology or any of that has discovered a tricky way of getting energetic photons to detour around certain things whilst continuing to do the job desired of them. We still use brute force; grounded screens, safety switches, lead aprons, concrete blocks, and all of that to deal with the various radiant devices we use daily.

At CERN, at the LHC, they are still putting concrete blocks out. Which in itself is also illustrative of a mature technology. Our understanding of the particle zoo is vastly more than it was in 1920, but we are still spinning up particles with a large magnetic field. To get the energies we need to explore particles like the Higgs, there is no real option but lots of power and lots of space.

Sixty years after the first cyclotron, no-one has a better alternative for the successor to the LHC than to build an even BIGGER ring. There is no magic method.



What we have done in the decades since the 70's is largely finesse; getting higher degrees of accuracy and control, and learning how to industrialize even more subtle processes; small capacitance changes, casimir force, the subtle glow of energized organic dyes. None of these have changed the basic force equations. A skyscraper still stands up on the basis of thick steel girders, and a car still goes forward on the basis of burning an energetic hydrocarbon. Nothing in the design of an iPad makes its battery suddenly able to turn a motor with twice the torque, or make its internal radio able to broadcast with twice the power. It isn't more powerful than anything before...it is more subtle.

And subtle, with exceptions, doesn't get you to Mars.

Oddly enough, however; the energetic requirements -- the large-scale, costly, brute-force requirements -- are not in question and are the primary reason no human Mars mission has yet to be funded.

But the actual engineering of a Mars mission does involve many of the subtler questions toward which what we have learned over the past decades is of inestimable use. How to keep a liveable atmosphere over that long a flight. How to keep the crews sane. How to preserve health without a gravitational field. How to problem-solve, do maintenance and repairs, and deal with emergencies at that kind of distance.

Which is why we have been seeing studies like the one the OP mentioned.

News