Yes. It is a big leap from a seven-year old boy firing off a cheap firework in his parent's backyard to men taking a rocket nearly 250,000 miles to the Moon, landing on it and hopping around, and then flying back.

Agreed. In the same way that it's a big leap from a seven year old boy making a paper plane to an A380 flying hundreds of people around the world with every seat having an entertainment system with a wide selection of movies, TV, games and music. Comfortable seats and bathrooms, hot food. On board Wi-fi. Flat beds and showers in business class.
That is a big leap, but like most advances in technology it was made as a series of "small steps for man", not one "giant leap for mankind".

Quote
But an ICBM isn't designed for space travel -- it's a military weapon. And going from, say, 5,000 miles of range to 250,000 miles (plus a return journey), seems a massive leap.
Again, correct. But same argument as above, the leap was made as a series of small steps. It was the Saturn V with several stages of rockets which was required. The Russians were working on similar things, the US just got there first, the Russian ones kept blowing up. One thing to note, once you've escaped earth's gravity and made the initial burn to set you on course to the moon you don't need any more fuel to keep going. You're in a vacuum, there's no drag. Earth's gravity does slow you down but you don't need to keep your foot down all the time because of how fast you're going. It might be 50 times further but you don't need 50 times as much fuel, most of the fuel is used in the initial escape from earth's gravity.

Quote
I'm still unconvinced, too, that there is much to gain from sending people into space. Doing so was demonstrating political power and supposed scientific prowess originally.

The space race was initially motivated by political one-upmanship. But because of that they'd have surely been very keen to call the other side out of they could show the other side was faking it. It's notable that neither side did. What is to gain from ongoing things like the ISS? What is to gain from a permanent base at the South Pole? Or from people keep climbing Everest. As a species there's something in us which wants to explore, wants to learn more.

Yes, NASA did do things which no-one had done before. But before that the Russians did - Gagarin was a massive milestone. The Wright brothers did things no-one had done before.
By definition, invention of new technologies requires doing things no-one has done before. But Kennedy threw a shit-ton of money at the problem to overtake the Russians and as we see in War times, technology can progress quickly with the right motivation. Apollo XI was the culmination of years of work. Note the XI, there were 10 previous missions during which many of the techniques necessary to get to the moon and back - docking, EVAs etc - were practised and rehearsed. And prior to that there were the Mercury and Gemini programmes, much was learned from them.

I'd highly recommend "A Man On The Moon" by Andrew Chaikin if you want to learn more. It has loads of detail about how all this was done.

There were a load of small steps leading up to Armstrong's small step which represented a giant leap for us as a species.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 207
    • View Profile
"as we see in War times, technology can progress quickly with the right motivation" - I'd say war is the wrong motivation but I agree with what you're saying. Technology advances faster in times of war. Sadly this is how we have the technology today. I do find it funny that so many people here can deny that technology exists while using their phones and laptops to deny it. Nasa invented the computer mouse.


I'm still unconvinced, too, that there is much to gain from sending people into space. Doing so was demonstrating political power and supposed scientific prowess originally. There are desirable results from faking space travel, though.
[/quote]

Is there much to gain from sitting here debating endlessly the possibilities of a round earth vs a flat earth? Is there anything to gain from any exploration?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spinoff_technologies

Here is what we have achieved through space travel.

Offline retlaw

  • *
  • Posts: 193
    • View Profile
This better not be the yoyo despin.
Ugh, it is.


Doesn't explain rocket number 5 and on.
Please watch the other rockets, some explode.
I would love an explaination on those ones please.

*

Offline markjo

  • *
  • Posts: 3212
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
This better not be the yoyo despin.
Ugh, it is.


Doesn't explain rocket number 5 and on.
Please watch the other rockets, some explode.
I would love an explaination on those ones please.

The explanation for the Falcon 9 explosion is here:
Subsequent investigation traced the accident to the failure of a strut which secured a high-pressure helium bottle inside the second stage's liquid oxygen tank. With the helium pressurization system integrity breached, excess helium quickly flooded the liquid oxygen tank, causing it to overpressurize and burst.[7]

An independent investigation by NASA concluded that the most probable cause of the strut failure was a design error which, instead of using a stainless steel eye bolt made of aerospace-grade material, SpaceX chose an industrial-grade material without adequate screening and testing, and overlooked the recommended safety margin.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

This better not be the yoyo despin.
Ugh, it is.


Doesn't explain rocket number 5 and on.
Please watch the other rockets, some explode.
I would love an explaination on those ones please.

Do you think all aircraft that crash have "hit the dome"?
Dude, rockets explode sometimes. They are literally full of explosive liquid so when things go wrong they go very wrong.
You need to explain all the ones that don't and seem to get into space just fine without hitting the Dome, because there isn't one.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline retlaw

  • *
  • Posts: 193
    • View Profile

The explanation for the Falcon 9 explosion is here:
Subsequent investigation traced the accident to the failure of a strut which secured a high-pressure helium bottle inside the second stage's liquid oxygen tank. With the helium pressurization system integrity breached, excess helium quickly flooded the liquid oxygen tank, causing it to overpressurize and burst.[7]

An independent investigation by NASA concluded that the most probable cause of the strut failure was a design error which, instead of using a stainless steel eye bolt made of aerospace-grade material, SpaceX chose an industrial-grade material without adequate screening and testing, and overlooked the recommended safety margin.


An independent investigation by NASA is not independent at all.
They simply blamed space x.
And they stated  "probable cause"
That is an assumption only with no facts to back their claim.

Offline retlaw

  • *
  • Posts: 193
    • View Profile

Do you think all aircraft that crash have "hit the dome"?

Only the ones that are launch straight up and not on an angle over the ocean so they can disappear out of eyes watching.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile

Do you think all aircraft that crash have "hit the dome"?

Only the ones that are launch straight up and not on an angle over the ocean so they can disappear out of eyes watching.

How high is the dome?

Offline retlaw

  • *
  • Posts: 193
    • View Profile
How high is the dome?

Top of ionosphere. Same place as the sun. That is why the temperature and radiation are so strong.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
How high is the dome?

Top of ionosphere. Same place as the sun. That is why the temperature and radiation are so strong.

How high is that?


The explanation for the Falcon 9 explosion is here:
Subsequent investigation traced the accident to the failure of a strut which secured a high-pressure helium bottle inside the second stage's liquid oxygen tank. With the helium pressurization system integrity breached, excess helium quickly flooded the liquid oxygen tank, causing it to overpressurize and burst.[7]

An independent investigation by NASA concluded that the most probable cause of the strut failure was a design error which, instead of using a stainless steel eye bolt made of aerospace-grade material, SpaceX chose an industrial-grade material without adequate screening and testing, and overlooked the recommended safety margin.


An independent investigation by NASA is not independent at all.
They simply blamed space x.
And they stated  "probable cause"
That is an assumption only with no facts to back their claim.
Did you read the report? If you didn't, how can you claim it has 'no facts' to back it up? Just spewing nonsense.
I'd note both NASA and SpaceX conducted an investigation, which is why it's referred to as an 'independent NASA investigation' as it was conducted without SpaceX involvement. Both reports agree on the same area failing. Where they differ is NASA says this is the most likely error point (the screw) while SpaceX concluded it was just that the part(s) were sort of more generally defective. This was based upon telemetry and other information from the crashed vehicle. Not 'no facts' for either claim.


Do you think all aircraft that crash have "hit the dome"?

Only the ones that are launch straight up and not on an angle over the ocean so they can disappear out of eyes watching.

Great, so what happens with all those rockets that hit nothing and go to or above where the ones that 'crash' reached?

How high is the dome?

Top of ionosphere. Same place as the sun. That is why the temperature and radiation are so strong.

 The top of the ionosphere is 1000km up. If you assume the Earth is flat and use trig to calculate the distance to the Sun based on the shadow length of two sticks in distant locations at the same time of day (3 distant sticks, incidentally, provides a pattern of shadow lengths that cannot possibly be accounted for on a flat surface  btw, and tells you that they Sun must be much more distant than the flat surface asumption will let you calculate, but hey I'm playing along) then you get a calcukated distance of no less than 3000km. That's standard FE claim too by the way - so no, it's not at the top of the ionosphere, even if the world were flat.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 884
    • View Profile
I guess my point is that if retlaw thinks all of those rockets in the video hit the dome:

- For the ones that didn't explode when hitting it at 2000 m/s they must be made out of some miracle substance, perhaps Vibranium.
- For those that did hit the dome, at a minimum that's 1000km (or 600 miles) up on the low-end or 3000km (or 1800 miles) up on the high-end. Heights of which those rockets don't even come close to.

Offline retlaw

  • *
  • Posts: 193
    • View Profile

An independent investigation by NASA concluded that the most probable cause of the strut failure was a design error which, instead of using a stainless steel eye bolt made of aerospace-grade material, SpaceX chose an industrial-grade material without adequate screening and testing, and overlooked the recommended safety margin.

I read a lot of NASA articles like a lawyer would read law and I find they are full of misinformation.
So they found the parts and pieced the rocket back together? Just like an air plane crash? ( i think not)

If so they would not have used the word "probable" if it is a fact? (Because they  are bullshitting)



*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 528
    • View Profile
This better not be the yoyo despin.
Ugh, it is.


Doesn't explain rocket number 5 and on.
Please watch the other rockets, some explode.
I would love an explaination on those ones please.
You're fighting a losing battle my friend, they're demons you're trying to argue with. Liars all..................
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

Offline retlaw

  • *
  • Posts: 193
    • View Profile
You're fighting a losing battle my friend, they're demons you're trying to argue with. Liars all..................

Thanks, demons are a good description.
NASA is a joke.
If I lived in the US I would be pissed that I have to give those players money.

Offline retlaw

  • *
  • Posts: 193
    • View Profile
Go to the meat of this video at 1:52:00
What does the balloon hit and scrap against before it pops?





Go to the meat of this video at 1:52:00
What does the balloon hit and scrap against before it pops?


Nothing. It just pops. As would any balloon when it gets high enough and the pressure outside is low enough that the pressure inside the balloon is enough to break the material the balloon is made of.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.