Sign up with Google
TheMightyQuinn
Not amused...
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 31,961
Biggest hoax of all time, but massively sucsessful in getting the patritic blood pumping when desperately needed in the USA during those turbulant times..
-
Ask a question and get free supportUnlock new privileges and see hidden discussionsWin prizes and earn reputation
-
Question of the day ~ How often do you braai?
-
Afristay giveaway.Win a 2-night stay for two people at an establishment of your choice with R1,000 in spending money. Enter here.
Phased space exploration
- Thread starter Palimino
- Start date
Biggest hoax of all time, but massively sucsessful in getting the patritic blood pumping when desperately needed in the USA during those turbulant times..
I think you may have watched too many re-runs of Capricorn One.
TheMightyQuinn
Not amused...
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 31,961
a
Never heard of Capricorn One. We all know that the technology required to land on the moon and to take off again did not exist in the 60's This is not even a conspiracy theory anymore, as the "moonlandings" have been debunked in so many ways. IF they could so easily land on the moon in the 60's there would have been a base built there 20 years ago already.
Never heard of Capricorn One. We all know that the technology required to land on the moon and to take off again did not exist in the 60's This is not even a conspiracy theory anymore, as the "moonlandings" have been debunked in so many ways. IF they could so easily land on the moon in the 60's there would have been a base built there 20 years ago already.
TheMightyQuinn
Not amused...
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 31,961
Oh OK...whatever.
It won’t work and is almost certain to fail spectacularly and tragically. This will set-back space exploration yet again (without NASA crippling things). It will be like the Hindenburg disaster brought research into airships to a dead stop. We need baby steps first. The Moon is baby steps. There are aspects of space travel, space medicine, space engineering, closed eco-systems, colonies in hostile environments, etc. that colonising the Moon will teach.
People like you disgust me.
Archer
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2010
- Messages
- 22,423
And those debunkings have been debunked as well...
If you think carefully, you'd realise all the tech to land on the moon was around and in use. They even phased the landings like any half decent engineering project - first they simply crashed into the moon, then did hard landings (less than 100mph velocity on impact which hardened electronics can survive), then soft landings. All with unmanned vehicles. Only then did they tried manned landings
And what about the laser reflectors on the moon? Or is that another wordlwide conspiracy?
I guess the footprints that are still visible to this day have also been faked? And that all the Apollo equipment that was left behind was somehow planted there by unamnned craft? What an awesome robot that must have been to plant the US flag eh?
Its really sad when people fail to see such obvious truths.
Well the Russians say that their priority in space is in 'automated vehicles', not manned spaceflight and they're not interested in putting a man on Mars or Luna, and that focus of their immediate campaign is to put man in orbit for longer and for longer periods. (in automated vehicles or orbitals, like MIR/ISS)
--------------------------------------------
a Bit of History:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=apollo-moon-khrushchev
Russian reaction afer the moon landing:
Was Russia pretty close?
The Russians were not pretty close. I think Russia had no chance to be ahead of the Americans under Sergei Korolev and his successor, Vasili Mishin . [Sergei Korolev was the leader of the Russian space program who, with Mishin overseeing the development of the rocket, succeeded in launching Sputnik 1. He died in January 1966.—Editor's Note]
Korolev was not a scientist, not a designer: he was a brilliant manager. Korolev's problem was his mentality. His intent was to somehow use the launcher he had. [The launcher was called N1]. It was designed in 1958 for a different purpose and with a limited payload of about 70 tons.] His philosophy was, let's not work by stages [as is usual in spacecraft design], but let's assemble everything and then try it. And at last it will work. There were several attempts and failures with Lunnik [a series of unmanned Soviet moon probes]. Sending man to the moon is too complicated, too complex for such an approach. I think it was doomed from the very beginning.
Of course, you must understand that I am speaking from the point of a competitor. We worked with our own project, [at] the Chelomei design bureau. Maybe we were more realistic. But I don't think we would have been able to beat the Americans.
When talking about the Russian space program, there is a misconception in the West that it was centralized. In reality, it was more decentralized than in the United States, which had one focused Apollo program.
In the Soviet Union, there were different designers who competed with one another.
-------------------------------ends bit of history
I agree with the Russian attitude, focus on automated vehicles, and learn the science of the effects of space on man on nearby orbitals like the ISS. We do not need to put man on other planets right now, it's too expensive.
Let's first learn the art of living in space locally, before we try a nearby planet.
Imagine rather building a grand orbital/ hotel / Office Park/ Research Station. Such a project would invigorate the global economy and incorporate all our excellent engineering skills.
The idea here is to get ordinary humans aboard, to have babies, raise children, to live in orbit. So that humanity can require the skills needed for general existence in space. We do all this, starting with ISS. It will take time, a few decades. When will the first child be raised in an orbital ? I guess (optimistically) within 4-5 decades
--------------------------------------------
a Bit of History:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=apollo-moon-khrushchev
Russian reaction afer the moon landing:
Was Russia pretty close?
The Russians were not pretty close. I think Russia had no chance to be ahead of the Americans under Sergei Korolev and his successor, Vasili Mishin . [Sergei Korolev was the leader of the Russian space program who, with Mishin overseeing the development of the rocket, succeeded in launching Sputnik 1. He died in January 1966.—Editor's Note]
Korolev was not a scientist, not a designer: he was a brilliant manager. Korolev's problem was his mentality. His intent was to somehow use the launcher he had. [The launcher was called N1]. It was designed in 1958 for a different purpose and with a limited payload of about 70 tons.] His philosophy was, let's not work by stages [as is usual in spacecraft design], but let's assemble everything and then try it. And at last it will work. There were several attempts and failures with Lunnik [a series of unmanned Soviet moon probes]. Sending man to the moon is too complicated, too complex for such an approach. I think it was doomed from the very beginning.
Of course, you must understand that I am speaking from the point of a competitor. We worked with our own project, [at] the Chelomei design bureau. Maybe we were more realistic. But I don't think we would have been able to beat the Americans.
When talking about the Russian space program, there is a misconception in the West that it was centralized. In reality, it was more decentralized than in the United States, which had one focused Apollo program.
In the Soviet Union, there were different designers who competed with one another.
-------------------------------ends bit of history
I agree with the Russian attitude, focus on automated vehicles, and learn the science of the effects of space on man on nearby orbitals like the ISS. We do not need to put man on other planets right now, it's too expensive.
Let's first learn the art of living in space locally, before we try a nearby planet.
Imagine rather building a grand orbital/ hotel / Office Park/ Research Station. Such a project would invigorate the global economy and incorporate all our excellent engineering skills.
The idea here is to get ordinary humans aboard, to have babies, raise children, to live in orbit. So that humanity can require the skills needed for general existence in space. We do all this, starting with ISS. It will take time, a few decades. When will the first child be raised in an orbital ? I guess (optimistically) within 4-5 decades
Well said, but what you are assuming is that the priorities are the same – patriotism, prestige, national competition, etc. I maintain that the priority now is the exploitation of space and planets. Raw materials, weightless manufacturing, etc. Profit rules and may do much to open-up space. The old priorities (patriotism, prestige, national competition, etc.) are when countries ran the space programs and the taxpayer funded it (no need to make a profit. Now private companies and individuals are in the game and profit is the new priority and patriotism, prestige and national competition are secondary.
I agree with you, the focus has shifted to an economic and a long term sustainable approach to space, it's also gratifying that 'governments' are no longer in monopoly of space exploration, but that governments and private citizens and corporations from all over the globe can invest in space exploration, engineering and research and work together to make this happen.
Another thing which privileges private enterprise. They are not crippled by government PC-ness. It is reasonably safe - private enterprise do not want to lose their investment - (space work is still expensive) but if they pay enough, they would always be able to find someone with the appropriate qualifications prepared to take risks. This is the mercenary soldier type, risk-taking nature of human beings. Excessive PC-ness is not natural and government’s designed it for the lowest common denominator drooling idiot who shouldn’t be let loose without adult supervision.
TheMightyQuinn
Not amused...
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 31,961
Disgust you? Why is that?
TheMightyQuinn
Not amused...
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 31,961
Isn't this the science section? You should be in PD. shoo. off with you.
(BTW, it's laSer, not laZer)
I am all for baby steps. And nothing should stop private enterprise from bringing new tech in, that could take normal people to space and back for economic gains.
But ito the 'next' big human space exploration achievement - not having Mars in our sights seems somewhat weak. And I'm not saying - just strap astronauts to a hydrogen rocket (aka hindenburg) and aim for Mars, and land with bubble wrapped vehicle strapped to a parachute...and hope everything will work the first time. Thats not what they did with the first moon landing, they took babysteps, and should take babysteps again, but with a new aim - to have people on Mars - not a casino on the moon
TheMightyQuinn
Not amused...
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2010
- Messages
- 31,961
Exactly...it IS the science section. Maybe you should move the fantasy moon landing to the PD section.
But ito the 'next' big human space exploration achievement - not having Mars in our sights seems somewhat weak. And I'm not saying - just strap astronauts to a hydrogen rocket (aka hindenburg) and aim for Mars, and land with bubble wrapped vehicle strapped to a parachute...and hope everything will work the first time. Thats not what they did with the first moon landing, they took babysteps, and should take babysteps again, but with a new aim - to have people on Mars - not a casino on the moon
I am not suggesting a goalless effort. Of course we must have Mars in our sights and, ultimately, the stars. What I am against is a half-cocked expedition to Mars because it’s there, or the questing nature of man or some other heroic feel-good crap like that. Space is a major effort and must be tackled in a phased way, not fouled-up because of some ill-fated Mars expedition which hinders further research (like the Hindenburg). The Moon is baby steps. It’s easier to launch from the Moon’s gravity well anyway for extra-terrestrial junketing.
I think Obama has no more interest in keeping the space exploration promise than he has in any of the others he's made (Guantanemo anyone?) He wants the science community to vote him into a second term, but the USA frankly can't afford squat at the moment.