Here is another one for you all, if there is no atmosphere on the moon, light hits the moon in straight lines and also reflects off the moon again in straight lines.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 439828
Not quite right. Since the moon is less than a perfect mirror it diffusively reflects the light rays in all directions, causing indirect lighting of shaded objects. If the moon were reflecting all the light in straight lines we'd never see anything but stars where the moon is in the sky except during total lunar eclipses at which time we'd see ourselves reflected.
Skeptic the First User ID: 716362 7/2/2009 1:07 PM
Since the moon is less than a perfect mirror it diffusively reflects the light rays in all directions, causing indirect lighting of shaded objects.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 634208
NASA says that the moon only reflects 7% of the light that falls upon it:
[link to neo.jpl.nasa.gov]
---
Our Moon has a very low albedo (0.07), while Venus has a high albedo (0.60).
---
This albedo lies between those of fresh asphalt and worn asphalt pavement:
[link to eetd.lbl.gov]
---
The most recently paved surfaces have an albedo of about 0.04, because the asphalt (bitumin) coats the aggregate. (A typical asphalt concrete pavement is about 85% by volume of mineral aggregate and 15% asphalt.) Within 5 years the albedos increase to a mean value of 0.12 because the asphalt wears away, revealing some of the aggregate.
---
So the moon is about as shiny as a fairly new asphalt highway.
We never went to the moon. If we did, then why is it so difficult to get someone else in space? Why have Russia and China never sent any other human to the moon? How come none of the so called moonwalkers had any effects from radiation and lived into old age?
are you crazy....they WERE affected by the terrible radiation...but they were too manly and proud to let us know about it...if you watch the following video you will see how distressed and disoriented these men are just come back from the biggest human adventure EVER...
What courage to cover up the horrible effects that made them stutter and be able to look up....god it must have been bad....
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 715753
Looks more like they were affected by a terrible shame than anything else.
So the moon is about as shiny as a fairly new asphalt highway.
Quoting: Skeptic the First 716362
I've seen a dancer lit only from the light reflected off a black floor. And not a shiny floor, either.
If you would look closely at the Apollo Surface Photographs, you would note that in any picture were the shadowed side of objects is well filled in and defined, the lit portions are over-exposed. And in any where you are looking at mostly the lit side, there is little definition in the shadows. That gives you a pretty good idea of the illumination difference between them. Off-hand, I'd call it something like 10/90 -- but I don't do studio photography (my training and decades of experience in lighting lies elsewhere).
Looks more like they were affected by a terrible shame than anything else.
Quoting: ATR
Start watching at 2:30, after three shy (and very tired!) men get warmed up and their talk becomes animated. Just look at his expression as he talks about the Saturn V and tell me he's not proud and excited!
Oh, sorry. I forgot the first rule of hoax believers; never look at any more than five seconds of video at a time. If you did, you might see something your leaders didn't want you to see.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 716539 7/2/2009 10:46 PM
Looks more like they were affected by a terrible shame than anything else.
Start watching at 2:30, after three shy (and very tired!) men get warmed up and their talk becomes animated. Just look at his expression as he talks about the Saturn V and tell me he's not proud and excited!
Oh, sorry. I forgot the first rule of hoax believers; never look at any more than five seconds of video at a time. If you did, you might see something your leaders didn't want you to see.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
yes i did watch...the long pauses between each chopped up phrase does seem to indicate excitement at the 2:d0 point....and then the tipping of the head as if to remember a certain word such as "one" does show great animation indeed....yes proud...after all "the saturn did...pause...give us one ....amazing ride....(tilt head look down while speaking in a totally dead pan voice)
totally riveting
Like I said...this man was obviously struggling to recover from the effects of something terrible like radiation or mkultra.
Everytime I see one of these threads pop up on the web, I try to post these links... afterwards I hang my head in shame and know that the American education system is the real hoax as it produced George W. Bush, his cronies and his followers.
Some folks will still insist on there being a hoax, and for those people, I feel sorry for them. Ignorance is this country's greatest enemy, not Al Qaida.
Anonymous Coward User ID: 716539 7/3/2009 12:37 AM
Everytime I see one of these threads pop up on the web, I try to post these links... afterwards I hang my head in shame and know that the American education system is the real hoax as it produced George W. Bush, his cronies and his followers.
Some folks will still insist on there being a hoax, and for those people, I feel sorry for them. Ignorance is this country's greatest enemy, not Al Qaida.
Quoting: shameBot 713624
Yes it is ....terribly terribly shameful.
We all know we'll be going back any day now....why just as soon as we take care of this little business in Afghanistan and the rest of our world obligation to helping bring democracy and modernizing the backward cultures and pay off the 20 trillion deficit-- why...we'll head right on back up there. It's only the greatly ignorant internet generation that is so idiotic.
It was a snap the first time and the boys will be all the more equipped and able to land flawlessly while producing no discernable disturbance in the dust. They will simply race around in their little golf carts and take a picture about every 2 seconds....just like before.
Our current crop of astronauts aren't quite as hardy as the older generation....they may have some difficulty withstanding the cosmic radiation which has recently become terribly lethal...
probably due to new planets entering our system such Nibiru....
Yes it is ....terribly terribly shameful.
We all know we'll be going back any day now....why just as soon as we take care of this little business in Afghanistan and the rest of our world obligation to helping bring democracy and modernizing the backward cultures and pay off the 20 trillion deficit-- why...we'll head right on back up there. It's only the greatly ignorant internet generation that is so idiotic.
It was a snap the first time and the boys will be all the more equipped and able to land flawlessly while producing no discernable disturbance in the dust. They will simply race around in their little golf carts and take a picture about every 2 seconds....just like before.
Our current crop of astronauts aren't quite as hardy as the older generation....they may have some difficulty withstanding the cosmic radiation which has recently become terribly lethal...
probably due to new planets entering our system such Nibiru....
First, nuclear fusion is indeed quite "magical" in the layman's sense. Creating heavier elements from lighter ones is no small matter, and ultimately made life possible.
Second, you greatly underestimate the craftiness of Nazi scientists working for the military-industrial-intelligence complex. They have access to thermonuclear explosion sites both before and after, and hence can set up experiments to create materials of various types. In layman's terms, a Nazi scientist sees a thermonuclear weapon as a convenient Easy-Bake oven.
Third, a rock doesn't "look like" it has been formed billions of years ago. Instead, geologists apply various tests to make such estimates. Such tests have obviously not taken into account the possibility of human-made thermonuclear explosions, or Nazi experiments.
Quoting: Skeptic the First 716362
This still boils down to "Maybe they have some MAGICAL way of making rocks that will fool geologists."
Unless you can explain some way in which one understood process can mimic another understood process, you are doing either one of two hand-waves; either you are assuming magical technology that can make scientific impossibilities suddenly easy, or you are assuming geologists are dumb as rocks.
Fourth, NASA openly boasts of its skill at designing "lunar simulant":
[link to science.nasa.gov]
---
MSFC is developing three new simulants. Two will represent mare and polar highlands regions. A third will represent the glassy, sharp, jagged edges of regolith that test the best of hardware and humans. But matching every location on the Moon would require large numbers of small, unique, expensive batches.
"Instead, we will develop root simulants and manufacture specific simulants from these, but also enable investigators to enhance the products as needed," McLemore added. "I liken this process to baking a cake: depending on the type of cake you want, you need certain ingredients for it to come out right and taste right. Getting the recipe right whether for a cake or lunar simulants is critical."
For example, the new mare simulant will be enriched with ilmenite, a crystalline iron-titanium oxide.
---
Quoting: Skeptic the First 716362
Yes, openly. NASA has made no secret of it. In fact, you can ORDER the stuff.
I've already read a paper on the use (and failure) of simulant materials in experiments with lunar concrete (aka construction material made from regolith). The paper went into quite a bit of detail about how the current simulants fall short.
Next you are going to say, because experiments have been performed in crater formation, and since the lunar surface has many craters, faking the lunar surface is easy.
Yes it is ....terribly terribly shameful.
We all know we'll be going back any day now....why just as soon as we take care of this little business in Afghanistan and the rest of our world obligation to helping bring democracy and modernizing the backward cultures and pay off the 20 trillion deficit-- why...we'll head right on back up there. It's only the greatly ignorant internet generation that is so idiotic.
It was a snap the first time and the boys will be all the more equipped and able to land flawlessly while producing no discernable disturbance in the dust. They will simply race around in their little golf carts and take a picture about every 2 seconds....just like before.
Our current crop of astronauts aren't quite as hardy as the older generation....they may have some difficulty withstanding the cosmic radiation which has recently become terribly lethal...
probably due to new planets entering our system such Nibiru....
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716539
So many failures, so little time.
Let me just take one. If you divide surface time by exposures, you get 30 seconds. Not two. Can you take a picture in 30 seconds? I've taken one picture every four seconds, without viewfinder, over a period of several minutes. It isn't hard.
And for that thirty seconds, that's with two astronauts. So one can perform an experiment while the other takes the picture.
And it lumps in all together; at each station on the Rover missions, for instance, one or more panoramas were taken. These were from eight to twenty pictures taken by turning in place and snapping the shutter. About a minute's work. Leaving more like two minutes per picture after that. And most of the pictures were taken in multiples. So wait four minutes, take two pictures in quick succession of the same thing.
Starts to sound a little more reasonable, doesn't it?
If you look at everything else on your list with a fair eye, resisting the urge towards hyperbole, the others fall the same way.
Skeptic the First User ID: 716362 7/3/2009 11:14 AM
Unless you can explain some way in which one understood process can mimic another understood process...
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
Chuckle. If you claim to "understand" all the possible effects and by-products of a hydrogen bomb explosion that you have never experienced or experimented with, and also "understand" every aspect of the creation of celestial bodies that occurred billions of years ago, you are...
Very foolish.
In real life--as opposed to inside your brain--scientists who have swallowed the Kool-Aid of the military-industrial-intelligence complex "determine" the effects of a hydrogen bomb explosion from what the military tells them and the "evidence" the military provides. Similarly, such scientists "determine" how the solar system was formed from what NASA tells them and the "evidence" NASA provides.
If it weren't so tragic, it would be laughable that scientists are willing to swing their theories back and forth based solely on NASA's "evidence." It is, of course, totally contrary to genuine scientific method, which requires independent reproducibility.
Phasesphere Captain Trypps User ID: 714966 7/3/2009 11:24 AM
Unless you can explain some way in which one understood process can mimic another understood process...
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
Such naivete! Every day in science, "one understood process" can mimic "another understood process," either by intention or simply by accident. One disease can show the symptoms of another; a murder can look like an accident, a suicide, or even a heart attack; an ancient bone's DNA can look modern due to contamination; etc.
The scientific method attempts, over time and with experiment, to distinguishes different cases. But this is ongoing work, never finished, and requires an objective approach that positively looks for confounding factors, both accidental and deliberate. One of the reasons that science insists on independent reproducibility is the constant possibility of both accidental error and deliberate fraud.
Everytime I see one of these threads pop up on the web, I try to post these links... afterwards I hang my head in shame and know that the American education system is the real hoax as it produced George W. Bush, his cronies and his followers.
Some folks will still insist on there being a hoax, and for those people, I feel sorry for them. Ignorance is this country's greatest enemy, not Al Qaida.
Yes it is ....terribly terribly shameful.
We all know we'll be going back any day now....why just as soon as we take care of this little business in Afghanistan and the rest of our world obligation to helping bring democracy and modernizing the backward cultures and pay off the 20 trillion deficit-- why...we'll head right on back up there. It's only the greatly ignorant internet generation that is so idiotic.
It was a snap the first time and the boys will be all the more equipped and able to land flawlessly while producing no discernable disturbance in the dust. They will simply race around in their little golf carts and take a picture about every 2 seconds....just like before.
Our current crop of astronauts aren't quite as hardy as the older generation....they may have some difficulty withstanding the cosmic radiation which has recently become terribly lethal...
probably due to new planets entering our system such Nibiru....
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 716539
I agree totally with you. As soon as Obama finishes stimulating us and we have our money back, our new moonlanding mission will take off and land on the moon with absolutely no problem.
Since the first one did it with the computer capacity of an adding machine or wrist watch, our new program will almost instantly be up and running with our new capacity for analysis and data sorting.
Luckily those astonishing cameras from the late 60's that could function in both extremely cold and extremely hot conditions with absolutely no insulation (though they required manual adjustment and focusing) but took the most perfect and incredible pictures of the moon with no problem while wearing a massively insulated suit will still be available. Maybe they have kept the original one....
This should be great. The film was fantastic...didn't even melt in direct heat of over 250degreesF
I'm so looking forward to this....I am calling agencies trying to book my place on the first moontourist airbus.
Chuckle. If you claim to "understand" all the possible effects and by-products of a hydrogen bomb explosion that you have never experienced or experimented with, and also "understand" every aspect of the creation of celestial bodies that occurred billions of years ago, you are...
Quoting: Skeptic the First 716362
I don't understand epigenetics very well. I can't say, based on my own understanding, that it isn't impossible for the right conditions to cause a profound change in an organism. It may be possible that a brief exposure to, say, a burst of high-energy gamma radiation might influence a human embryo in such a way to give it giganticism, hyper-developed musculature, and a pronounced olive tinge to its skin. For this, I would have to trust an epigeneticist, or for that matter any competent embryologist (who would know the developmental limits of the human embryo).
However, I do know enough about the sciences involved to be absolutely sure that no gamma rays, beta radiation, alpha particles, nor any high-energy particle or radiation within the known physics "zoo" could possibly turn a grown human being into The Incredible Hulk.
That's about the distance you are reaching for here.
Look, don't listen to me. Just crack an introductory geology textbook. Hell, go on a geology tour (most places with interesting geology have something like that if you ask around). Right now you are characterizing geology as some sort of slack-jawed "make shit up and sort rocks" field. You really need to understand there is more to it. (And understand a little of how geologist work, what they can learn from samples, how they investigate them, etc.)
Very foolish.
In real life--as opposed to inside your brain--scientists who have swallowed the Kool-Aid of the military-industrial-intelligence complex "determine" the effects of a hydrogen bomb explosion from what the military tells them and the "evidence" the military provides. Similarly, such scientists "determine" how the solar system was formed from what NASA tells them and the "evidence" NASA provides.
Quoting: Skeptic the First 716362
Yes and no and yes and no. Before you can understand the answer, you have to understand the principle of first approximation, second approximation, and so forth.
Working from nothing but first principles (E = MC^2, and the amount of hydrogen in the second stage that actually fuses is generally known) I can get a ballpark idea of the temperature and shock pressure of a bomb. People who have taken more physics than I can do better with their cocktail napkin approximations; they can probably figure out, using various rules of thumb and other empiricisms, the size of the crater, the height of the cloud, etc.
People who study this sort of thing can do fairly well at characterizing what goes on inside the bomb at the instant of detonation, and what changes occur in the materials near the bomb. They can and have made predictions of atomic-level changes in materials nearby (neutron flux, et al), and chemical changes from the gamma, intense heat, et al.
But to really work out the details of a blast you need a couple of things; observation of previous blasts, and supercomputer modeling.
But...and this is why I said "yes, no, yes, no..." the computer programs, runs, assumptions, models, underlying physics, and so forth are not all contained within the military. There is as much secrecy as they can manage about the internals of the bomb (but that's been largely reverse-engineered by knowledgeable scientists and engineers outside the military), but the effects at ground zero are not so controlled.
All the above was just to say "it's complicated." It is. The point is that the existence of some secrets does not mean nothing can be known. Physics is basically conservative. If a new principle is discovered, mathematics incorporating it will return the same results as those without it within the range of experiments already performed.
So, yes, there are almost certainly some subtle material changes happening inside the bomb casing, that are known only to a relatively small number of nuclear weapons specialists. But on the other hand, even a high-school level physics buff knows enough that no configuration of bomb is going to produce a perfect creme brulé out of sand.
You seem to be saying some variation of this a lot, you know. The idea that, since we don't know everything, we can't know anything. Because it is possible to hide some of the things that go on during a nuclear explosion, ANYTHING could be happening at the heart of a nuclear explosion.
If it weren't so tragic, it would be laughable that scientists are willing to swing their theories back and forth based solely on NASA's "evidence." It is, of course, totally contrary to genuine scientific method, which requires independent reproducibility.
Quoting: Skeptic the First 716362
I'll take this paragraph to address your even more ludicrous claim. Let me just say; you know what a telescope is, right? Well, NASA doesn't own them all. It doesn't own the best ones, either. Space science is a combination of remote observation, close observation/expedition, simulation, and theory. Particularly in regards to cosmology, a lot of the heavy lifting is done not by telescopes (or, rather, probes like COBE), but by liniacs and the other tools of high-energy physics.
But even more -- and this goes back to your mystery nuke that for some reason known only to bomb jockies can fart out perfectly formed lunar samples -- the sciences are not hermetic. They are all interconnected. No astronomer these days can operate on astronomy alone. They have to dip into physics, high-energy physics, mathematics, statistics, computer science, geology, chemistry, plasma physics, electrodynamics........
The point being, you can't divorce one science from the rest of science, and make up crap in it. If what was in that science were true, it would leave a footprint all over the interconnected web of sciences. Just try to change the speed of light (to solve some problem you have with the age or size of the universe). Boom, microelectronics goes haywire, communications go funky, the GPS system goes down. You can't control the effects. You can't station an MP at all intersections between physics, particle physics, nuclear physics, engineering, materials sciences, and bomb making and say "Don't ask about neutron capture in titanium!" Sorry, but that shit comes up in industry, in civilian experiments, in college labs.
You want to stick strange stuff under a bomb, you can do it -- but the strange stuff has to be very small. It has to remain consistent with a lot of other science. And to the best of my understanding (or anyone else who has ever shaken a pointed stick at physics), you won't form moon rocks under a bomb. It is so far outside the zone of what is possible, you might as well expect the gamma radiation of the bomb to make you into a superhero.
Such naivete! Every day in science, "one understood process" can mimic "another understood process," either by intention or simply by accident. One disease can show the symptoms of another; a murder can look like an accident, a suicide, or even a heart attack; an ancient bone's DNA can look modern due to contamination; etc.
The scientific method attempts, over time and with experiment, to distinguishes different cases. But this is ongoing work, never finished, and requires an objective approach that positively looks for confounding factors, both accidental and deliberate. One of the reasons that science insists on independent reproducibility is the constant possibility of both accidental error and deliberate fraud.
Quoting: Skeptic the First 716362
I didn't ask you if it "could" happen, I asked you if you had any idea HOW it might happen.
I see you don't.
And although you are in principle correct, you miss the point. Actually, when we gain understanding of a process, we gain methods to tell it apart from other similar or similar-appearing processes. That's how it works. That's what differential diagnosis is, that's what competing hypothesis are.
But what you have proposed is neither. You have proposed that one understood process can be mimicked closely enough to fool experts in that process and its results. As the source of this mimicry, you have done nothing but wave your hands and say "You might be able to do it with a hydrogen bomb."
It's a farcical explanation that relies only on the principle that since there are some secrets in nuclear weaponry, it might be capable of violating known physics and geology. Yes, and the mailbox on the corner might fly. I can't watch it 24 hours a day, so it could easily be flying around and I'd never know it...
Such naivete! Every day in science, "one understood process" can mimic "another understood process," either by intention or simply by accident. One disease can show the symptoms of another; a murder can look like an accident, a suicide, or even a heart attack; an ancient bone's DNA can look modern due to contamination; etc.
The scientific method attempts, over time and with experiment, to distinguishes different cases. But this is ongoing work, never finished, and requires an objective approach that positively looks for confounding factors, both accidental and deliberate. One of the reasons that science insists on independent reproducibility is the constant possibility of both accidental error and deliberate fraud.
I didn't ask you if it "could" happen, I asked you if you had any idea HOW it might happen.
I see you don't.
And although you are in principle correct, you miss the point. Actually, when we gain understanding of a process, we gain methods to tell it apart from other similar or similar-appearing processes. That's how it works. That's what differential diagnosis is, that's what competing hypothesis are.
But what you have proposed is neither. You have proposed that one understood process can be mimicked closely enough to fool experts in that process and its results. As the source of this mimicry, you have done nothing but wave your hands and say "You might be able to do it with a hydrogen bomb."
It's a farcical explanation that relies only on the principle that since there are some secrets in nuclear weaponry, it might be capable of violating known physics and geology. Yes, and the mailbox on the corner might fly. I can't watch it 24 hours a day, so it could easily be flying around and I'd never know it...
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
independent reproducability is not lacking here. Soon every advanced nation on earth will be proudly planting their very own flags where ours once reigned supreme...they are well on the way to making this happen.
Why for sure by 2050 many nations will have reproduced what the USA did with ease over and over again with the Apollo missions back in the 60's and 70's.
In the meantime we can just watch smugly...well aware of the superior qualities of our NASA and how they were there so very much in advance of anyone else, despite the fact that the Russians had surpassed us in the "space race" by a huge margin...we pulled ahead.
At the last moment we surged into the lead and conquered the moon.
Let us never forget this my fellow citizens as our country serenely glides into the bottom of the worlds toilet...we can still nod and say with the greatest satisfaction
"Yes, my friend, the proud Americans did indeed walk on the moon...and in my lifetime, too!"
independent reproducability is not lacking here. Soon every advanced nation on earth will be proudly planting their very own flags where ours once reigned supreme...they are well on the way to making this happen.
Why for sure by 2050 many nations will have reproduced what the USA did with ease over and over again with the Apollo missions back in the 60's and 70's.
In the meantime we can just watch smugly...well aware of the superior qualities of our NASA and how they were there so very much in advance of anyone else, despite the fact that the Russians had surpassed us in the "space race" by a huge margin...we pulled ahead.
At the last moment we surged into the lead and conquered the moon.
Let us never forget this my fellow citizens as our country serenely glides into the bottom of the worlds toilet...we can still nod and say with the greatest satisfaction
"Yes, my friend, the proud Americans did indeed walk on the moon...and in my lifetime, too!"
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 717364
Not quite.
Going to the Moon was not easy, and will not be easy for many decades yet. It is, at the heart of it, a very energy-intensive activity and there is no magical fix for that.
Some time in the next forty years maybe we'll have space elevators or some similar technological advancement and that will take the edge of the energy costs. Or we'll have practical fusion and energy costs will have gone down. Or there may be some new physics by then. At the moment, we are still stuck with brute force. The only change is the level of intelligence with which we can apply it, and that's a small percentage savings indeed. (Ignorance is still not an option -- we don't have THAT much brute force).
The Soviet Union had a good program, but they never made it over the scaling hurdle. They couldn't make the leap from suborbital to the heavy-lift capability that would let them go to the Moon with men. The engines they had were strong, but not scaleable.
We wrestled with that for quite some time ourselves. Read up on "Pogo problem" some time to hear about the headaches in getting those five F1's of the Saturn V first stage to work together. Meanwhile the Soviet N-1 was a cluster-fuck of over a dozen too-small engines, and the same instabilities tore the craft apart.
The best the Soviets could do was push their orbital capability for as much publicity as they could manage. I think it's great they sent a woman up (and shame on the US -- among other things, if Jeri and her people had been allowed in, the landings might have taken place years earlier!) But it isn't exactly a massive advance in technological capability! The sexes aren't that different, you know. Sending a woman up doesn't mean you are suddenly much more advanced. Sending three guys crammed into a ship built for two....well, even less so.
The laugh, eventually, was on the Russsians. They scrapped the N-1 and saved a bunch of rubles. And they got really, really good with the lift capability they had. So much we ended up renting from them everytime our way-too-technical Space Shuttle went awry.
independent reproducability is not lacking here. Soon every advanced nation on earth will be proudly planting their very own flags where ours once reigned supreme...they are well on the way to making this happen.
Why for sure by 2050 many nations will have reproduced what the USA did with ease over and over again with the Apollo missions back in the 60's and 70's.
In the meantime we can just watch smugly...well aware of the superior qualities of our NASA and how they were there so very much in advance of anyone else, despite the fact that the Russians had surpassed us in the "space race" by a huge margin...we pulled ahead.
At the last moment we surged into the lead and conquered the moon.
Let us never forget this my fellow citizens as our country serenely glides into the bottom of the worlds toilet...we can still nod and say with the greatest satisfaction
"Yes, my friend, the proud Americans did indeed walk on the moon...and in my lifetime, too!"
Not quite.
Going to the Moon was not easy, and will not be easy for many decades yet. It is, at the heart of it, a very energy-intensive activity and there is no magical fix for that.
Some time in the next forty years maybe we'll have space elevators or some similar technological advancement and that will take the edge of the energy costs. Or we'll have practical fusion and energy costs will have gone down. Or there may be some new physics by then. At the moment, we are still stuck with brute force. The only change is the level of intelligence with which we can apply it, and that's a small percentage savings indeed. (Ignorance is still not an option -- we don't have THAT much brute force).
The Soviet Union had a good program, but they never made it over the scaling hurdle. They couldn't make the leap from suborbital to the heavy-lift capability that would let them go to the Moon with men. The engines they had were strong, but not scaleable.
We wrestled with that for quite some time ourselves. Read up on "Pogo problem" some time to hear about the headaches in getting those five F1's of the Saturn V first stage to work together. Meanwhile the Soviet N-1 was a cluster-fuck of over a dozen too-small engines, and the same instabilities tore the craft apart.
The best the Soviets could do was push their orbital capability for as much publicity as they could manage. I think it's great they sent a woman up (and shame on the US -- among other things, if Jeri and her people had been allowed in, the landings might have taken place years earlier!) But it isn't exactly a massive advance in technological capability! The sexes aren't that different, you know. Sending a woman up doesn't mean you are suddenly much more advanced. Sending three guys crammed into a ship built for two....well, even less so.
The laugh, eventually, was on the Russsians. They scrapped the N-1 and saved a bunch of rubles. And they got really, really good with the lift capability they had. So much we ended up renting from them everytime our way-too-technical Space Shuttle went awry.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
well we sure beat 'em, didn't we?
We just pogoed our way on up there with terrific ability that is still incredible to this very day when no one has yet been able to reproduce this amazing feat!
The laugh sure is on the Russians.....we sure showed them a thing or two....
hahhahahhhhaahhhahhhhahhhhahhhahahahahaha.
Heh. I actually meant to say the laugh was on the US. Which you'd understand if you read my last paragraph. They got really good at LEO. We threw our development money into a "space truck" that turned out to be more of a "space British Roadster"; fickle, expensive, with a small boot and prone to breakdowns.
So right now, with the Constellation still being worked on, the shuttle fleet retiring, and the EU still lagging, the Russians are yet again the go-to guys for lift capability.
(But that just underlies that the day that Skylab launched, the capability of heavy-lift left the world, and it still hasn't come back.)
Heh. I actually meant to say the laugh was on the US. Which you'd understand if you read my last paragraph. They got really good at LEO. We threw our development money into a "space truck" that turned out to be more of a "space British Roadster"; fickle, expensive, with a small boot and prone to breakdowns.
So right now, with the Constellation still being worked on, the shuttle fleet retiring, and the EU still lagging, the Russians are yet again the go-to guys for lift capability.
(But that just underlies that the day that Skylab launched, the capability of heavy-lift left the world, and it still hasn't come back.)
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
righto ....those Russians will be walking all over the moon any day now...
ayup ayup...maybe we should loan them our magic cameras that functioned on the moon with temperatures well outside anything possibly encountered on earth just fine. Including the film which did great at temperatures over 200 degrees...wow
they would probably like to borrow that little item...
Attempting to have an intelligent conversation with these so-called skeptics is waste of time.
Skeptics have two basic beliefs. One, they hate the US and US government.
Two they are paranoid, fear driven individuals.
If men from skunk works constructed a plane in 1958 that could fly faster than a bullet over extended periods, what makes you think they were not advanced enough ten years later to go to the moon?
Skeptic, they lied, the SR 71 is a hoax.
What about fat boy dropping on Japan. We got fairly advanced in the late 40's.
Skeptic: not true, it was all lies to make the American people think we won the war.
What about all of the pics of Hiroshima in the aftermath?
Skeptic: Tokyo photo shop, all faked. The burns marks were all wrong.
What about the reflective mirrors left on the moon so we could measure it's distance and tracks it's yearly retreat of one inch?
Skeptic: Never happened. Because we never went there.
How come universities and countries from all over the world are doing their own research using our mirrors?
Skeptic: Lies, they are all in collusion with NASA.
Why do you hate your country?
Skeptic:It is evil and NASA is not a space agency but a mind control center for shills like you.
Attempting to have an intelligent conversation with these so-called skeptics is waste of time.
Skeptics have two basic beliefs. One, they hate the US and US government.
Two they are paranoid, fear driven individuals.
If men from skunk works constructed a plane in 1958 that could fly faster than a bullet over extended periods, what makes you think they were not advanced enough ten years later to go to the moon?
Skeptic, they lied, the SR 71 is a hoax.
What about fat boy dropping on Japan. We got fairly advanced in the late 40's.
Skeptic: not true, it was all lies to make the American people think we won the war.
What about all of the pics of Hiroshima in the aftermath?
Skeptic: Tokyo photo shop, all faked. The burns marks were all wrong.
What about the reflective mirrors left on the moon so we could measure it's distance and tracks it's yearly retreat of one inch?
Skeptic: Never happened. Because we never went there.
How come universities and countries from all over the world are doing their own research using our mirrors?
Skeptic: Lies, they are all in collusion with NASA.
Why do you hate your country?
Skeptic:It is evil and NASA is not a space agency but a mind control center for shills like you.
Quoting: FubarMan
logic: We did drop the atom bomb and burned 100,000's of people to little crisps or mostly just vaporized, and permanently maimed, crippled and disfigured millions more as well created generations of genewrecked twisted disfunctionals
We did indeed do all that as everyone in the world agress that we did
Ergo....we did fly to the moon, land and lift off and return to earth many times.
Though since those magic hours no one has gone more than a mere one percent of the total millage to reach the moon.
Yeah that makes complete sense...good thing you caught that.
Though since those magic hours no one has gone more than a mere one percent of the total millage to reach the moon.
Yeah that makes complete sense...good thing you caught that.
Actually, we've gone 70 percent of the way to the Moon. Repeatedly. With every shuttle, with every Proton rocket.
To understand that answer, though, you'll need a little basic science.
Quoting: nomuse (NLI) 711198
you are wrong. Manned space craft has never gone past the van allen belt which is only about 500 miles above the earth.
Surely you know (don't you?) how far the moon is?
Though since those magic hours no one has gone more than a mere one percent of the total millage to reach the moon.
Yeah that makes complete sense...good thing you caught that.
Actually, we've gone 70 percent of the way to the Moon. Repeatedly. With every shuttle, with every Proton rocket.
To understand that answer, though, you'll need a little basic science.
you are wrong. Manned space craft has never gone past the van allen belt which is only about 500 miles above the earth.
Surely you know (don't you?) how far the moon is?
Maybe not....I do.
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 717364
Yes and most countries and universities know also because they bounce lasers off the mirrors the Americans left on the moon for research. Fact!
Though since those magic hours no one has gone more than a mere one percent of the total millage to reach the moon.
Yeah that makes complete sense...good thing you caught that.
Actually, we've gone 70 percent of the way to the Moon. Repeatedly. With every shuttle, with every Proton rocket.
To understand that answer, though, you'll need a little basic science.
you are wrong. Manned space craft has never gone past the van allen belt which is only about 500 miles above the earth.
Surely you know (don't you?) how far the moon is?
Maybe not....I do.
Yes and most countries and universities know also because they bounce lasers off the mirrors the Americans left on the moon for research. Fact!
Quoting: FubarMan
Manned space flight has never crossed through the van allen belt, except, of course, the ever astounding Apollo Missions.
The Van Allen Belt is about 1000 miles above the earth.
The moon is about 380,000 miles above the Earth.
I am too stupid to calculate what % 1000 is of 385,000
Please help me. Because I keep coming up with 70%...
just like you say.
Wow....it's great everone bounces off our mirror placed their by the very hands of the brave brave men....do they also bounce off the one left by the unmanned flight with the Russian robot?
Nah...that's just not as cool.....
Though since those magic hours no one has gone more than a mere one percent of the total millage to reach the moon.
Yeah that makes complete sense...good thing you caught that.
Actually, we've gone 70 percent of the way to the Moon. Repeatedly. With every shuttle, with every Proton rocket.
To understand that answer, though, you'll need a little basic science.
you are wrong. Manned space craft has never gone past the van allen belt which is only about 500 miles above the earth.
Surely you know (don't you?) how far the moon is?
Maybe not....I do.
Yes and most countries and universities know also because they bounce lasers off the mirrors the Americans left on the moon for research. Fact!
Manned space flight has never crossed through the van allen belt, except, of course, the ever astounding Apollo Missions.
The Van Allen Belt is about 1000 miles above the earth.
The moon is about 380,000 miles above the Earth.
I am too stupid to calculate what % 1000 is of 385,000
Please help me. Because I keep coming up with 70%...
just like you say.
Wow....it's great everone bounces off our mirror placed their by the very hands of the brave brave men....do they also bounce off the one left by the unmanned flight with the Russian robot?
Nah...that's just not as cool.....
Quoting: Anonymous Coward 717364
I'm sorry you don't understand science and when we and other countries/universities began endeavor. Way before the Russians. But you guys just don't like the facts do ya?
Disclaimer: This website exists for entertainment purposes only. The reader is responsible for discerning the validity, factuality
or implications of information posted here, be it fictional or based on real events. Moderators on this forum make every
effort to review the material posted on this site however, it is not realistically possible for our small staff to manually
review each and every one of the more than 10,000 posts GodlikeProductions gets on a daily basis.
The content of post
on this site, including but not limited to links to other web sites, are the expressed opinion of the original poster and are in
no way representative of or endorsed by the owners or administration of this website. The posts on this website are the opinion of
the specific author and are not statements of advice, opinion, or factual information on behalf of the owner or
administration of GodlikeProductions.
This site may contain adult content and if you feel you might be offended by such content, you should log off immediately.
Not all posts on this website are intended as truthful or factual assertion by their authors. Some users of this website are participating in internet role playing, with or without the use of an avatar. NO post on this website should be considered factual information on face value alone. Users are encouraged to USE DISCERNMENT and do their own follow up research while reading and posting on this website. Godlikeproductions.com reserves the right to make changes to, corrections and/or remove entirely at any time posts made on this website without notice. In addition, Godlikeproductions.com disclaims any and all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of a post on this website.
This site is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. You should not assume that this site is error-free or that it will be suitable for the particular purpose which you have in mind when using it. In no event shall Godlikeproductions.com be liable for any special, incidental, indirect or consequential damages of any kind, or any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
Some events depicted in certain posting and threads on this website may be fictitious and any similarity to any person living or dead is merely coincidental. Some other articles may be based on actual events but which in certain cases incidents, characters and timelines have been changed for dramatic purposes. Certain characters may be composites, or entirely fictitious.
We do not discriminate against the mentally ill!
Fair Use Notice: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to civil rights, economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science & technology, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information please visit: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Please be aware any communications sent complaining about a post on this website may be posted publicly at the discretion of the administration.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at anytime.
Mail Webmaster with questions or comments about this site.
