The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: TheTruthIsOnHere on November 17, 2016, 06:24:49 PM
-
http://www.iflscience.com/space/russia-wants-to-send-people-to-the-moon-in-2031/
Interesting... That they only need 15 more years to plan the mission, and develop the technology to accomplish the mission... yet we supposedly already did this in 1960's with Sub Speak & Spell level computer technology.
If manned lunar landings were so easy in the 60's and 70's why has no one else done it? Or why haven't we done it since Apollo Missions? I can imagine many different scientific benefits to experimenting technology or developing it on the moon.
-
If manned lunar landings were so easy in the 60's and 70's why has no one else done it? Or why haven't we done it since Apollo Missions?
No one claimed that it was easy. In fact, it was really, really expensive, which is why no one else has done it since, including us.
I can imagine many different scientific benefits to experimenting technology or developing it on the moon.
Like what? We already have the ISS for zero-g experiments.
-
If manned lunar landings were so easy in the 60's and 70's why has no one else done it?
Why hasn't FES mounted an expedition to map and explore the ice wall? Surely there are enough FE believers out there to overcome any type of conspiracy yet all they do is regurgitate the same 100 plus year old story and conspiracy theories and call it good. Why not put half that effort into something which will definitively prove your theory to be correct?
-
If manned lunar landings were so easy in the 60's and 70's why has no one else done it?
Why hasn't FES mounted an expedition to map and explore the ice wall? Surely there are enough FE believers out there to overcome any type of conspiracy yet all they do is regurgitate the same 100 plus year old story and conspiracy theories and call it good. Why not put half that effort into something which will definitively prove your theory to be correct?
Word!
-
http://www.iflscience.com/space/russia-wants-to-send-people-to-the-moon-in-2031/
Interesting... That they only need 15 more years to plan the mission, and develop the technology to accomplish the mission... yet we supposedly already did this in 1960's with Sub Speak & Spell level computer technology.
If manned lunar landings were so easy in the 60's and 70's why has no one else done it? Or why haven't we done it since Apollo Missions? I can imagine many different scientific benefits to experimenting technology or developing it on the moon.
Kennedy said they were going to the moon because it was hard, not because it was easy. In fact, no one has ever asserted it was easy going to the moon, except ignoramuses and conspiracy theorists.
-
Also, it’s not as if there is nothing else going on up there.
New horizon is currently hanging around Pluto looking at possible slush oceans, Messenger data from Mercury is still being analysed (http://earthsky.org/space/great-valley-mercury-messenger-2016), Cassini is taking beautiful (and informative) images of Titan’s clouds (http://earthsky.org/space/watch-summer-clouds-on-titan ), Curiosity is trundling around on Mars I think, if it didn’t get blown up by the ESA’s Schiaparelli lander ‘s rather heavy landing, the Kepler space observatory is looking at planet transitions across giant stars, Swift is helping and looking for the birth of black holes, Rosetta has just finished a reasonable successful rendezvous with a comet, the Venus Express is coming to the end of its life after giving us valuable information on Venus and Earth, and so on.
Not all of these are the work of the great Satan NASA, the last two are European, India has a Mars orbiter in position, Japan has Hayabusa 2 heading for a meeting with an asteroid in an effort to find the origins of life and China are planning their own space station (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong-2).
So don’t worry, while you have been firmly stuck in the dark ages, others have been pushing for the stars.
-
New Horizons is not "hanging around Pluto". It was moving WAY too fast to try for a capture orbit, flew in and out of the Pluto system in a matter of hours, barely even perturbed from the hyperbolic solar trajectory it's been on since Jupiter.
(http://pluto.jhuapl.edu/Mission/The-Path-to-Pluto/images/NHPlutoEncounterTrajectory_NomV8_Guo20150615.png)
With its limited fuel budget the most it can do is very slightly alter its orbit, which it has done to target a Kuiper Belt Object for a January 2019 flyby (http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2014/10151024-finally-new-horizons-has-a-kbo.html). (http://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/images/9-small-bodies/2014/20141001_WithPluto_labels.png)
-
My Bad, sloppy.
-
If manned lunar landings were so easy in the 60's and 70's why has no one else done it? Or why haven't we done it since Apollo Missions?
No one claimed that it was easy. In fact, it was really, really expensive, which is why no one else has done it since, including us.
I can imagine many different scientific benefits to experimenting technology or developing it on the moon.
Like what? We already have the ISS for zero-g experiments.
The other problem was that the success of the moonlandings was getting there and getting back safely. UNfortunately, the moon offers little else beyond a place to plant a flag. Mars however...
-
If manned lunar landings were so easy in the 60's and 70's why has no one else done it? Or why haven't we done it since Apollo Missions?
No one claimed that it was easy. In fact, it was really, really expensive, which is why no one else has done it since, including us.
I can imagine many different scientific benefits to experimenting technology or developing it on the moon.
Like what? We already have the ISS for zero-g experiments.
The other problem was that the success of the moonlandings was getting there and getting back safely. UNfortunately, the moon offers little else beyond a place to plant a flag. Mars however...
What does Mars offer? Besides no atmosphere and no magnetic field...
-
If manned lunar landings were so easy in the 60's and 70's why has no one else done it? Or why haven't we done it since Apollo Missions?
No one claimed that it was easy. In fact, it was really, really expensive, which is why no one else has done it since, including us.
I can imagine many different scientific benefits to experimenting technology or developing it on the moon.
Like what? We already have the ISS for zero-g experiments.
The other problem was that the success of the moonlandings was getting there and getting back safely. UNfortunately, the moon offers little else beyond a place to plant a flag. Mars however...
What does Mars offer? Besides no atmosphere and no magnetic field...
1. A place to live in case an asteroid decides to blow up earth.
2. Advancement of human capabilities.
3. Fun for the whole family.
-
If manned lunar landings were so easy in the 60's and 70's why has no one else done it? Or why haven't we done it since Apollo Missions?
No one claimed that it was easy. In fact, it was really, really expensive, which is why no one else has done it since, including us.
I can imagine many different scientific benefits to experimenting technology or developing it on the moon.
Like what? We already have the ISS for zero-g experiments.
The other problem was that the success of the moonlandings was getting there and getting back safely. UNfortunately, the moon offers little else beyond a place to plant a flag. Mars however...
What does Mars offer? Besides no atmosphere and no magnetic field...
What does Mars offer? Maybe you should aquaint with the reasons so many countries and agencies want to go there. It DOES have an atmosphere albeit thin. It has gravity and a near 24hr rotational cycle. Also, it is the only planet we can reach capable of supporting life.
So what does Mars offer??? A chance to explore and increase our knowledge. it has ice caps, probable water in aquifers.
-
If manned lunar landings were so easy in the 60's and 70's why has no one else done it? Or why haven't we done it since Apollo Missions?
No one claimed that it was easy. In fact, it was really, really expensive, which is why no one else has done it since, including us.
I can imagine many different scientific benefits to experimenting technology or developing it on the moon.
Like what? We already have the ISS for zero-g experiments.
The other problem was that the success of the moonlandings was getting there and getting back safely. UNfortunately, the moon offers little else beyond a place to plant a flag. Mars however...
What does Mars offer? Besides no atmosphere and no magnetic field...
What does Mars offer? Maybe you should aquaint with the reasons so many countries and agencies want to go there. It DOES have an atmosphere albeit thin. It has gravity and a near 24hr rotational cycle. Also, it is the only planet we can reach capable of supporting life.
So what does Mars offer??? A chance to explore and increase our knowledge. it has ice caps, probable water in aquifers.
Why is everyone so worried about making Mars the new Earth instead of the fact that we're making Earth the new Mars?
Wouldn't it make much more sense to build a survival camp on the moon? It's a lot closer, and don't we have a track record of landing on the moon, somehow taking back off of the moon, and returning gently to Earth? Seems like the more logical choice to me. Any system we would plan for mars should probably be tested closer to home first, wouldn't you agree?
-
What does Mars offer? Maybe you should aquaint with the reasons so many countries and agencies want to go there. It DOES have an atmosphere albeit thin. It has gravity and a near 24hr rotational cycle. Also, it is the only planet we can reach capable of supporting life.
So what does Mars offer??? A chance to explore and increase our knowledge. it has ice caps, probable water in aquifers.
I am fully aware of the reasons people are interested. "Supporting life" is a bit of a misnomer. I am sure you are aware of the numerous difficulties that would be encountered for humans to try to colonize Mars (assuming you were implying humans when you mentioned supporting life).
-
If manned lunar landings were so easy in the 60's and 70's why has no one else done it? Or why haven't we done it since Apollo Missions?
No one claimed that it was easy. In fact, it was really, really expensive, which is why no one else has done it since, including us.
I can imagine many different scientific benefits to experimenting technology or developing it on the moon.
Like what? We already have the ISS for zero-g experiments.
The other problem was that the success of the moonlandings was getting there and getting back safely. UNfortunately, the moon offers little else beyond a place to plant a flag. Mars however...
What does Mars offer? Besides no atmosphere and no magnetic field...
What does Mars offer? Maybe you should aquaint with the reasons so many countries and agencies want to go there. It DOES have an atmosphere albeit thin. It has gravity and a near 24hr rotational cycle. Also, it is the only planet we can reach capable of supporting life.
So what does Mars offer??? A chance to explore and increase our knowledge. it has ice caps, probable water in aquifers.
Why is everyone so worried about making Mars the new Earth instead of the fact that we're making Earth the new Mars?
Wouldn't it make much more sense to build a survival camp on the moon? It's a lot closer, and don't we have a track record of landing on the moon, somehow taking back off of the moon, and returning gently to Earth? Seems like the more logical choice to me. Any system we would plan for mars should probably be tested closer to home first, wouldn't you agree?
Mars has the potential for being self-sustaining no matter how difficult that would be. The moon has zero potential for that.
-
If manned lunar landings were so easy in the 60's and 70's why has no one else done it? Or why haven't we done it since Apollo Missions?
No one claimed that it was easy. In fact, it was really, really expensive, which is why no one else has done it since, including us.
I can imagine many different scientific benefits to experimenting technology or developing it on the moon.
Like what? We already have the ISS for zero-g experiments.
The other problem was that the success of the moonlandings was getting there and getting back safely. UNfortunately, the moon offers little else beyond a place to plant a flag. Mars however...
What does Mars offer? Besides no atmosphere and no magnetic field...
What does Mars offer? Maybe you should aquaint with the reasons so many countries and agencies want to go there. It DOES have an atmosphere albeit thin. It has gravity and a near 24hr rotational cycle. Also, it is the only planet we can reach capable of supporting life.
So what does Mars offer??? A chance to explore and increase our knowledge. it has ice caps, probable water in aquifers.
Why is everyone so worried about making Mars the new Earth instead of the fact that we're making Earth the new Mars?
Wouldn't it make much more sense to build a survival camp on the moon? It's a lot closer, and don't we have a track record of landing on the moon, somehow taking back off of the moon, and returning gently to Earth? Seems like the more logical choice to me. Any system we would plan for mars should probably be tested closer to home first, wouldn't you agree?
"Should be tested closer to home first"
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#SLS_mission_schedule
EM-1
Send Orion capsule on trip around the Moon, deploy 6 other small cubesats
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
It's almost as if... they ARE doing that!
-
1. A place to live in case an asteroid decides to blow up earth.
A society advanced enough to form a colony on another planet is advanced enough to alter course of the asteroid suspected of colliding with the Earth.
Honestly, the fiction never ceases here.
-
1. A place to live in case an asteroid decides to blow up earth.
A society advanced enough to form a colony on another planet is advanced enough to alter course of the asteroid suspected of colliding with the Earth.
Honestly, the fiction never ceases here.
That really depends on the size doesn't it? I figure it's a lot easier to settle on, say Mars, than to redirect a mass-extinction event asteroid. The chicxulub crater was done by an object estimated to be about 6 miles in diameter. That's a whole lot of mass.
-
1. A place to live in case an asteroid decides to blow up earth.
A society advanced enough to form a colony on another planet is advanced enough to alter course of the asteroid suspected of colliding with the Earth.
Honestly, the fiction never ceases here.
That's not necessarily true. The amount of energy required to move relatively lightweight materials from Earth to Mars would be several orders of magnitude smaller than the amount of energy required to move even a small asteroid.
-
Asteroids can often be HUGE. Even a moderately sized one would prove very difficult, even theoretically impossible, to move compared to our ability to move stuff to and from and around ON Mars.
Why does Russia say technology will be better in a few years? Simple. The last time we went to the Moon we had no intention of doing ANYTHING there besides landing, looking around, posting a few flags, and leaving.
Russia wants to DO STUFF this time around. You have to have more than the technology to just get off the ground, get there, get back OFF the Lunar ground, and get back. That cost so much damn money and effort it was un-effing-believable back in the '60's and '70's.
As to the above comments regarding the utility of the Moon as a place to live, that is debatable. It is not terraformable per se, no. But we could conceivably live there, yes. Under domes,or what-have-you.
Mars IS more Earthlike than the Moon. It is a better option for larger numbers of people. As for the remarks about turning Mars into Earth v. turning Earth into Mars, they are quite apropos, and something to seriously contemplate.
But to make an argument, as the OP does, that Russia doesn't mean what they are saying based on the technology we supposedly had "pre-Speak-and-Spell", just shows how lacking in knowledge the average FEer is in logic and basic human progress.
-
That's not necessarily true. The amount of energy required to move relatively lightweight materials from Earth to Mars would be several orders of magnitude smaller than the amount of energy required to move even a small asteroid.
That really depends on the size doesn't it? I figure it's a lot easier to settle on, say Mars, than to redirect a mass-extinction event asteroid. The chicxulub crater was done by an object estimated to be about 6 miles in diameter. That's a whole lot of mass.
Oh, pardon me Mssrs. Rocket Scientists...
What fiction do you base your outlandish statements on?
-
Actually, TOTALLACKEY, a better question would be, what pre-500BC manuscript do you base YOUR ideas on?
-
Actually, TOTALLACKEY, a better question would be, what pre-500BC manuscript do you base YOUR ideas on?
No, the better question remains what I asked.
Got people making BS claims with no basis in reality.
-
Well, since FET is based entirely on concepts that the Greeks made obsolete in about 300 BC, when Aristotle came around...
And no. Even my limited knowledge of math can tell you that moving small objects to Mars is easier than moving a gigantic object even a few degrees. I recognise that you're general lack of anything between the ears does cause cognitive problems, but please, do not impute such problems to the rest of us.
-
That's not necessarily true. The amount of energy required to move relatively lightweight materials from Earth to Mars would be several orders of magnitude smaller than the amount of energy required to move even a small asteroid.
That really depends on the size doesn't it? I figure it's a lot easier to settle on, say Mars, than to redirect a mass-extinction event asteroid. The chicxulub crater was done by an object estimated to be about 6 miles in diameter. That's a whole lot of mass.
Oh, pardon me Mssrs. Rocket Scientists...
What fiction do you base your outlandish statements on?
An asteroid is bigger than a rocket.
-
Well, since FET is based entirely on concepts that the Greeks made obsolete in about 300 BC, when Aristotle came around...
And no. Even my limited knowledge of math can tell you that moving small objects to Mars is easier than moving a gigantic object even a few degrees. I recognise that you're general lack of anything between the ears does cause cognitive problems, but please, do not impute such problems to the rest of us.
You accuse me of a lack of anything between the ears, yet make elementary mistakes in grammar (highlighted for the benefit of the readership).
I highly doubt you can calculate your way to the corner grocer most days.
That's not necessarily true. The amount of energy required to move relatively lightweight materials from Earth to Mars would be several orders of magnitude smaller than the amount of energy required to move even a small asteroid.
An asteroid is bigger than a rocket.
You have ZERO clue of the amount of energy required for either task, so quit bloviating on concerning the issue.
-
That's not necessarily true. The amount of energy required to move relatively lightweight materials from Earth to Mars would be several orders of magnitude smaller than the amount of energy required to move even a small asteroid.
That really depends on the size doesn't it? I figure it's a lot easier to settle on, say Mars, than to redirect a mass-extinction event asteroid. The chicxulub crater was done by an object estimated to be about 6 miles in diameter. That's a whole lot of mass.
Oh, pardon me Mssrs. Rocket Scientists...
What fiction do you base your outlandish statements on?
What part of it? That changing the path of an asteroid is hard?
-
What part of it? That changing the path of an asteroid is hard?
Zero of it being real to begin with, the part comparing the difficulty of colonizing another planet in time to avoid extinction or the part detouring or smashing the asteroid prior to collision.
-
Good old NDT recently said in an interview that whatever your concern for life on Earth is, it is easier to solve and requires less energy than moving humanity as a whole to Mars. But that is moving billions of people. If you just want to move a small portion, it is likely easier than say, redirecting a killer asteroid.
-
You have ZERO clue of the amount of energy required for either task, so quit bloviating on concerning the issue.
You should teach me about the amount of energy required to move an asteroid.
-
Well, since FET is based entirely on concepts that the Greeks made obsolete in about 300 BC, when Aristotle came around...
And no. Even my limited knowledge of math can tell you that moving small objects to Mars is easier than moving a gigantic object even a few degrees. I recognise that you're general lack of anything between the ears does cause cognitive problems, but please, do not impute such problems to the rest of us.
You accuse me of a lack of anything between the ears, yet make elementary mistakes in grammar (highlighted for the benefit of the readership).
I highly doubt you can calculate your way to the corner grocer most days.
That's not necessarily true. The amount of energy required to move relatively lightweight materials from Earth to Mars would be several orders of magnitude smaller than the amount of energy required to move even a small asteroid.
An asteroid is bigger than a rocket.
You have ZERO clue of the amount of energy required for either task, so quit bloviating on concerning the issue.
"You are general lack..." . That is what the apostrophe means, right? Now who is the grammatical idiot? SCHMUCK.
-
You have ZERO clue of the amount of energy required for either task, so quit bloviating on concerning the issue.
You should teach me about the amount of energy required to move an asteroid.
You made the claim.
Get teachy...
Show and tell time.
-
Well, since FET is based entirely on concepts that the Greeks made obsolete in about 300 BC, when Aristotle came around...
And no. Even my limited knowledge of math can tell you that moving small objects to Mars is easier than moving a gigantic object even a few degrees. I recognise that you're general lack of anything between the ears does cause cognitive problems, but please, do not impute such problems to the rest of us.
You accuse me of a lack of anything between the ears, yet make elementary mistakes in grammar (highlighted for the benefit of the readership).
I highly doubt you can calculate your way to the corner grocer most days.
That's not necessarily true. The amount of energy required to move relatively lightweight materials from Earth to Mars would be several orders of magnitude smaller than the amount of energy required to move even a small asteroid.
An asteroid is bigger than a rocket.
You have ZERO clue of the amount of energy required for either task, so quit bloviating on concerning the issue.
"You are general lack..." . That is what the apostrophe means, right? Now who is the grammatical idiot? SCHMUCK.
You still are and are only solidifying your position as the grammatical idiot.
Kindly explain in what possible version of English is the sentence "I recognise that you aregeneral lack of anything between the ears does cause cognitive problems, but please, do not impute such problems to the rest of us," grammatically correct?
You call me a schmuck, and you cannot even write at a sixth grade level.
-
I suggest both of you stop calling the other one an idiot or you will both be placed on timeout.
-
But to make an argument, as the OP does, that Russia doesn't mean what they are saying based on the technology we supposedly had "pre-Speak-and-Spell", just shows how lacking in knowledge the average FEer is in logic and basic human progress.
So, acknowledging that the technology we used 50 years ago to supposedly land on the moon is objectively inferior in every imaginable way to what we have developed since is somehow illogical?
And you're both idiots by the way