41

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Ice wall circumference versus RE Antarctica circumference

« on: July 26, 2018, 07:38:26 PM »

 Circumnavigation is performed by moving in a great circle for both FE and RE models.

42

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Water on Mars

« on: July 26, 2018, 05:33:44 PM »

Our technological development has been a case of necessity, not curiosity. Sure, you can claim that "by making it necessary to go to Mars, we can spur technological development" but then we need to remember that all of those things would be built right here on Earth, making going to Mars moot.

Necessity is the mother of invention.  It will be the inventors living on Mars (or the Moon) who learn to develop closed system habitats that fully recycle human waste for reuse.  We can't  develop that on Earth.  There is no need.  It is way too easy to just throw our waste away so we always will.  But once the Mars community develops it there, it will be very helpful in abolishing poverty here on Earth.

43

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Lunar Module

« on: July 25, 2018, 08:57:56 PM »

2) The SpaceX Falcon 9 block 5 is a human rated launch vehicle.

Not yet, it isn't.  It needs to have 7 successful unmanned flights in its final crew configuration before becoming man rated.  To the best of my knowledge, the required updated helium tanks were not included in any of the block 5 launches yet (the third launch was early this morning), so the F9 block 5 still needs at least 7 more launches before it can be man rated.

From spaceflightnow.com
https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/05/11/spacex-debuts-an-improved-human-rated-model-of-the-falcon-9-rocket/

The successful launch propelled SpaceX closer to launching astronauts for NASA, which will fly on the same “Block 5” model of the Falcon 9 rocket that flew Friday
SpaceX engineers also added a permanent fix on the Block 5 upgrade to resolve a concern with turbine wheel cracks inside the Merlin engine’s turbopump, and new helium tanks that are not susceptible to pooling frozen liquid oxygen and friction that led to the explosion of a Falcon 9 rocket on the launch pad in 2016.
Both changes were meant to make the Falcon 9 compliant with NASA human-rating safety standards.

I guess if the Block 5 falcon has launched 3 times, they need 4 more.  The SpaceFlightNow launch schedule says that could be done by the end of August.  So unless SpaceX is planning to spend $42 billion in the next month, they should just come in under the NASA standard for low earth taxi service.

44

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA going to SUN

« on: July 25, 2018, 06:36:08 PM »

Correct diagnosis.  I definitely had faltering attention on Monday.
Today, with your guidance, I found a different article which described the temperature control systems as something very different than "just like a car radiator".
Many thanks.

45

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Lunar Module

« on: July 25, 2018, 05:53:46 PM »

Projects go over budget all the time.

Add in the fact that NASA had two VERY public fatality incidents with two separate missions, with all the inspection, revision and such that followed, with all the health and safety considerations thereafter, and I'm not surprised at all that they were well over budget.

I know of at least one public transport project in the UK that went three times over its original budget, and that didn't have any loss of life considerations at all ....

Anyone following on from this (SpaceX, etc.) has the benefit of hindsight with respect to what NASA did, and how that affects what they do, so any direct comparison between the pioneering project being more expensive than the project which followed it (both chronologically and logistically) would appear to be moot.   

All well stated.  Your points work very well when a project goes three times over budget.
Don't you join me is questioning when the project goes 8 times over budget?  Or is thirty times more expensive than it needs to be?

Shouldn't NASA be included in organizations that "benefit of hindsight".  I have put effort into not comparing pioneering projects with follower projects.  The SLS booster is comparable to Falcon Heavy.  Orion is comparable to Dragon.  SLS will be comparable to BFR (when they exist).  It's not like I'm comparing Saturn V to Falcon 1.

Yes government costs more, yes human rated costs more.  Twice as much... fine.  Three times over budget... that happens.  I am agreeing with you guys about this.  But what are limits of your ability to just say space is hard and things go over budget?  At some point someone needs to ask what's really going on here.  If 20 times over actual costs is not enough for you what is?

46

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Lunar Module

« on: July 25, 2018, 04:56:02 PM »

You’ve done nothing to show NASA wastes money other than balling at budget sizes.

Comparing budget sizes is a valid method of inspecting claims of wasted money.

47

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Lunar Module

« on: July 25, 2018, 04:53:33 PM »

Do you seriously expected them to be efficient?

Inefficient isn't a good enough descriptor for NASA. Inefficient works for Boeing who will use $4.2 billion to do a job that really takes $2.6 billion to do. If you told me that this comparison is a description of not efficient I would agree.
 

Also, you seem to be ignoring the mission capabilities they are designing the SLS for. They go well beyond the interesting but much more limited SpaceX Falcon 9.

Fine. Apples and oranges. I get it. How about this then... We are being told that it takes $2.6 billion to build a system to deliver people to low earth orbit. All the Space shuttle ever claimed to do was deliveries to low earth orbit. How much did that cost to develop? If they were inefficient, it would have cost $5 billion. Maybe they were REALLY inefficient at $10 billion. Nope. NASA's original cost projection for the Shuttle was $43 billion to develop and $54 million per flight (inflation adjusted to 2011 dollars). These are all projections for space systems that can carry 7 people to low earth orbit.
 
We don't know the actual development cost of the Shuttle program. But we have been told that the actual per flight number didn't end up being $54 million. It's was $450 million. "Not efficient" cannot be an acceptable descriptor of NASA. I'd have to go with "conspiratorial" instead.

48

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Lunar Module

« on: July 25, 2018, 03:51:26 PM »

Why haven't we been back at all? Money, primarily.

A 2005 report by NASA estimated that returning to the moon would cost about $104 billion (which is $133 billion today, with inflation) over about 13 years. The Apollo program cost about $120 billion in today's dollars.

And yet SpaceX developed the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 for $390 million total.
NASA has spent $11.9 billion on SLS so far and it may never get done.

No matter what we may believe about the shape of the earth, we can all agree that NASA's SLS program is fake.
We know that it costs $400 million to develop a rocket (that can launch and land).  What has NASA done with the other 11.5 BILLION?

Do I/we need to point out that the Falcons are not, at present, manned craft, and don't constitute a lunar mission?

Here's an apple. Please compare it to an orange, why don't you?

1) I show you a 1 pound apple next to a 30 pound orange and all you have to say about it is we shouldn't compare apples to oranges?  I call foul on that answer.

2) The SpaceX Falcon 9 block 5 is a human rated launch vehicle.  The Falcon Heavy is supposed to support lunar missions.  Are you sure they're not both oranges? What about BFR?  Is that an apple or an orange?

My point, that NASA makes absurd amounts of money disappear, is still uncontested.  I can understand the argument that it took 120 billion to do something for the first time.  But how can anyone say, "Ok, that sounds fine" when NASA says it will cost $133 billion to do it again?

49

Flat Earth Community / Re: They plan to remove windows from passenger planes

« on: July 23, 2018, 11:59:08 PM »

My future kids asking me: "Daddy, did the earth look nice from the windows of the planes of your era?"
I would feel cursed to be born in the post-windows era.

Your future kids will think you were cursed for for growing up in an era without augmented reality.

50

Flat Earth Community / Re: NASA going to SUN

« on: July 23, 2018, 11:51:19 PM »

When I was in college I took a customer service class and it had a strange effect on me.  I started noticing bad customer service everywhere I went.  The kind of thing I had been oblivious to before.  FE has done a little of that for me here.

Here's the technical triumph.  The space craft's thermal regulation system will use just a gallon of water to dissipate heat just like a car radiator

Before coming to this website, I wouldn't notice that, but now I catch things that sound ridiculous.  I am confident that there is a great explanation and model for the probes cooling system with an ordinary gallon of water, but you have to admit that it sounds crazy to say we have a new thermal dispersal system that will allow us to approach the Sun like never before.  It's water in a car radiator.  They invented it a hundred years ago, but we just figured out that we can use it for this too. Who knew?  It's a technical triumph!

51

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The Lunar Module

« on: July 23, 2018, 09:27:33 PM »

Why haven't we been back at all? Money, primarily.

A 2005 report by NASA estimated that returning to the moon would cost about $104 billion (which is $133 billion today, with inflation) over about 13 years. The Apollo program cost about $120 billion in today's dollars.

And yet SpaceX developed the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 for $390 million total.
NASA has spent $11.9 billion on SLS so far and it may never get done.

No matter what we may believe about the shape of the earth, we can all agree that NASA's SLS program is fake.
We know that it costs $400 million to develop a rocket (that can launch and land).  What has NASA done with the other 11.5 BILLION?

52

Flat Earth Community / Re: They plan to remove windows from passenger planes

« on: July 18, 2018, 04:01:40 PM »

I was wondering how they were going to be able to show a round earth to the upcoming space passengers.
This will do it.  Wide angle lens video "windows".

53

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 13, 2018, 10:19:56 PM »

This image of the sun is an example, like the blowfish, where light and dark shapes are caused by other phenomenon besides external light shadows.

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 13, 2018, 10:17:56 PM »

I don't agree that the shadows must be caused by an external light source.

I disagree. I Didn't see any shadows on a  light bulb,  textured light bulb, the sun, or on Bobby Shafto hand held self lit moon which are all self illuminating.
The definition of shadow "a dark area or shape produced by a body coming between rays of light and a surface."

As I read Tom's quote, I believe he is expressing that dark shapes on the moon may be, but are not necessarily, shadows caused by external light.

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 13, 2018, 10:02:59 PM »

Could there be a celestial light source which exists behind or to the side of the surface of the earth?
We never see it directly, only its effects.  If there is a sun and a moon above the Earth, why couldn't there be other light sources to the side or below the earth?

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Full Moon Impossible on Flat Earth?

« on: July 13, 2018, 09:22:49 PM »

What about light refraction as photons hit the boundary between space and the atmolayer?  Could light refract and/or reflect off the boundary to cause moon effects?

57

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Using a telescope to see the sun at night

« on: July 13, 2018, 07:26:01 PM »

If there was a street light at the end of your garden, you would be able to see it. If your garden is 10 miles away, you should be able to see that same street light with a telescope even though everything else around you is dark. We can see galaxies thousands of light years away with telescopes, so theoretically, we should be able to see the sun which according to FET is only about 3,000 miles vertical and would be several thousands miles away horizontally at night.

The atmolayer is not transparent.  It distorts and then obscures visibility over great distances.

58

Flat Earth Community / Re: What would it take for you to change your mind?

« on: July 13, 2018, 04:39:54 PM »

what would it take to completely convince you that the Earth is a globe / flat, depending on your POV?

An accurate flat-earth map on a flat piece of paper would convince me it's flat.
An accurate curved-earth map on a curved piece of paper would convince me it's curved.

59

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is FET Dangerous?

« on: July 12, 2018, 09:13:04 PM »

In essence, we should ask not if FET is dangerous, but rather if RET is dangerous. An ongoing lie can do so much more damage than the truth could ever hope to accomplish. How many innocents continue to believe sweet fictions like Neil Armstrong hobbling about on the moon after climbing out of a capsule made of tin foil? Surely these sweet lies are the real danger to our society, not any sort of danger surrounding FET itself.

This is interesting because it's the same argument RE uses against FE.  I disagree both ways.
I am proposing that if FE is flat out wrong, and I believe it anyway, it really doesn't harm me.
Likewise if the moon landings 40 years ago are totally fake, but I believe them anyway, it really doesn't harm me.

Rejection of objective facts is all over our political spectrum now, and it's very dangerous. If we're willing to throw away facts and just believe whatever we want, the future is doomed.

I agree with this.  We should all avoid presenting false data as fact.  The best of us are open minded enough to shift our beliefs to correct data when we recognize it, but not everyone can.  I believe that enough of us do.

If the flat earth theory comes along with rejecting standard units of measurement, cartography, moon rotation, navigation, satellites, laws of physics, astronomy, trigonometry, flights etc then I would say yes.

I don't see this happening with FE.  The members of this forum use all these things in daily life and use them in discussions on this site.  Even those who don't believe in satellites orbiting a round earth pull out their phones and follow the navigation prompts as they drive.

The dangers of FE essentially become most prevalent if it loses it's core, loses it's 'way' as it were. If it becomes less about learning and exploring things for yourself, and more about simply anti-establishment. Some fringes are starting to appear this way, but for the most part I believe it's still holding steady to that core ideal.

I agree this is true about anything.  Look for truth in another framework: good. Anti-establishment: bad.

Asking a question isn't dangerous - but making up answers, especially if those answers breed distrust of the scientific method, is dangerous. I don't have a problem with people making arguments in good faith, or even just-for-fun but based on real data. I have a problem with people deliberately lying.

I like this.  This sums it up to me for both sides.  "I must not tell lies" -Harry Potter ootp

60

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is FET Dangerous?

« on: July 11, 2018, 01:16:44 AM »

Apologies for the OP without my own opinion.  My excuse is that I posted it at the beginning of my work day intending to make a first and a second comment, but work got busy and I haven’t been able to come back until now.

Let me give my motivation in posting this topic.  I discovered tfes.org a year ago and I truly enjoy the interaction here.  I understand and identify with the RET I have been taught in school, but am also intrigued by the alternative ideas presented by FET.  During the past year, I’ve been through several phases as a tfes.org member.  I started with a discover phase where I just posted to understand better.  I passed through a truth phase where I wanted to correct people who were posting falsehoods.  I went through a project phase where I wanted to put effort in building models or maps to prove my points. Lately I’ve been in a clarification phase where I mostly just look for opportunities to clarify what someone else might be saying hoping for a peacemaker effect.
This past weekend I saw a perspective that could allow me to participate on the forum in a new way.  One that is more supportive and explorative of the FE ideas.  I find myself wanting to participate in talking more about flat-earth possibilities and my favorite flat-earth mind benders.  I want to be there when people first catch that glimpse and say, “No. Wait… Could it?  I never thought… No… wait a minute… I? What?”  I just love watching someone’s mind expand with possibilities.

This past weekend, as I contemplated speaking up more for FET, I felt a need to be honest with myself and what I write in the forum.  I’m not interested in creating a character.  I thought a lot about the questions I asked to open this topic.  I am exploring the possibility of finding a way to be a genuine FE contributor, but I do need to have this discussion and feel good about it.
In the end, I don’t believe sharing FET is harmful.  I agree with the general warnings people are giving about the dangers of rejecting factual evidence.  I can see how that is a problem with vaccinations and global climate change.  I can see how discordant beliefs in these areas cause damage to individuals and civilizations.  FET isn't the same.  Looking for ways to explain our world in a different model than the generally accepted one doesn't alarm me.  I like it.

I am out of time, but I am interested in this discussion.  Thanks all.