Forget the Moon, spacetravel doesn't exist anyway.

Grunt · #41 18th April 2004, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by watcher16

The technology used to bring a spacecraft to the moon is still available, the russians still use their 43 year old rockettechnology to bring the Sojuz in orbit. In fact it is so simple they don't even have a countdown. Compare that to the 'mission control' images Nasa fed the media.

Untrue. The tooling required to manufacture the Saturn boosters has been gone for decades. It is impossible to build another one. Any vehicle for flight to the moon (remember it requires much more energy to reach the moon than low-earth orbit) will have to be designed and built completely from scratch.

Things just for some reason take longer to do today.. more red tape probably. The days of an aircraft going from concept to prototype in 90 days are long gone.

watcher16 · #42 19th April 2004, 01:00 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Jack_Sparrow

FACTS - you are the one in lunatic speculation conspiracy land.

Personal event - are you smoking crack? Are you seriously telling me that Pravda and TASS who once on a day published or aired everything that slighted the US and NATO would not have trumpeted this 'hoax' for all it was worth.

Since you are just a kid you may have forgotten but the world was a different place back in the seventies. You don't have a clue!

There is spacetravel and has been for over 40 years now.

Hey Jack, again your post consists of emotion **** mostly, only the last item is at the case. And since that is about the statement itself I thank your for that. If you define spacetravel as traveling more than 1000 km from earth, which I would like to do for the sake of the discussion, there is no spacetravel in the last 32 years. And no one claiming so.

Your reactions make me wonder about this physical stuff...

watcher16 · #43 19th April 2004, 01:06 AM

Originally Posted by Dracon427

You have yet to bring up the shuttle missons and the ISS, both o which can be seen with the naked eye. Those are space travel, they exsist, what do you say about that?

I don't call that space-travel because they stay in low earth orbit. Below the Van Allenbelts to be specific. The one time a shuttle came to the edge of this belt at about 800 km the astronauts reported to be able to see the radiation even with their eyes closed. They never went there again as far as I know.

The moon is 375.000 km, really a different thing in distance.

watcher16 · #44 19th April 2004, 01:11 AM

Originally Posted by Grunt

Untrue. The tooling required to manufacture the Saturn boosters has been gone for decades. It is impossible to build another one. Any vehicle for flight to the moon (remember it requires much more energy to reach the moon than low-earth orbit) will have to be designed and built completely from scratch.

Things just for some reason take longer to do today.. more red tape probably. The days of an aircraft going from concept to prototype in 90 days are long gone.

Since there is some device to keep alive in for some day, the sojouz, since the Russians have their 'old' technology available and working, you could let them do it.

But you can also wait a couple of years and let the chinese do it....

Mistermystery · #45 19th April 2004, 05:53 AM

Originally Posted by watcher16

Save the discussion of pro and contra on thousands of questionable issues around the faked or not faked Apollo missions.

No spacetravel:
Since spacetravel does not exist yet, there can have been no moon missions. Why is not exists? Since 1972 there has been no one astronaut said to be farther away from the surface of the earth than 400-800 km.

No Apollo:
Or do you think that there is any other area of science where, in the modern times, in 32 years there has been such a backward development that to reproduce the landings it takes another 10 to 20 years to go to the moon? From a time with very simple calculators to the modern day with real computers??

Dream on!

Any proof for those claims, bub? Or is this simply your personal opinion?

In any case, you are very wrong with both assumptions. There have been astronauts farther away then 800 km and there have been men on the moon.

As for those 10 years; Bush in his speech is talking about a permanent settlement on the moon. In doing so he's talking about far more then simply sending someone up there. Also 10 years ain't that much. There's need for training; developing the rocket(s), planning, developing living units, testing and God knows what else.

On a small sidenote: In my opinion Bush first would need to complete the ISS together with the ESA and Russia (and maybe even China).

Mistermystery · #46 19th April 2004, 05:55 AM

Originally Posted by watcher16

I don't call that space-travel because they stay in low earth orbit. Below the Van Allenbelts to be specific. The one time a shuttle came to the edge of this belt at about 800 km the astronauts reported to be able to see the radiation even with their eyes closed. They never went there again as far as I know.

The moon is 375.000 km, really a different thing in distance.

This is a gross exaggeration and simply not supported by the data. Radiation was a definite concern for NASA before the first space flights, but they invested a great deal of research into it and determined the hazard was minimal. It took Apollo about an hour to pass through the radiation belts - once on the outbound trip and once again on the return trip. The total radiation dose received by the astronauts was about one rem.

A person will experience radiation sickness with a dose of 100-200 rem, and death with a dose of 300+ rem. Clearly the doses received fall well below anything that could be considered a significant risk. Despite claims that "lead shielding meters thick would have been needed", NASA found it unnecessary to provide any special radiation shielding.
This here hoax you're posting also advocates also make the mistake of thinking in 2 dimensions. The Van Allen Radiation Belts consist of a doughnut-shaped region centered around the Earth's magnetic equator, and spanning about 40 degrees of latitude - 20 degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The translunar trajectories followed by the Apollo spacecraft were typically inclined about 30 degrees to the Earth's equator; therefore, Apollo bypassed all but the edges of the radiation belts.

Arikay · #47 19th April 2004, 06:06 AM

Just out of curiousity, how does one "see" radiation with the naked eye and no aids (such as flouresent materials)?

Mistermystery · #48 19th April 2004, 06:11 AM

Originally Posted by Arikay

Just out of curiousity, how does one "see" radiation with the naked eye and no aids (such as flouresent materials)?

Didn't you know? Radiation.. It glows, man! That's why it's called radiation!!!!111!

Mistermystery · #49 19th April 2004, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by watcher16

The technology used to bring a spacecraft to the moon is still available, the russians still use their 43 year old rockettechnology to bring the Sojuz in orbit. In fact it is so simple they don't even have a countdown. Compare that to the 'mission control' images Nasa fed the media.

I think most of your other points don't hold any ground, but I would like to clearify this one. As you've probably seen with Andre Kuipers, the Russians constantly update their rockets. What you say is 43 years old, is infact updated technology, based on rockettech from 43 ago. That's a big diffrence. If you don't believe me, look at the NOS tonight, and they'll probably mention that he's been launched in a Soyuz 8. Their big booster rockets have been changed also. Esp with the closed loop systems developed by the Russians.

The fact that they don't countdown is a lie. They've planned everything out before and they've calculated the exact moment when they should launch, for instnace Mr. Kuipers was launched at exactly at 05:19:34. Simply because you don't hear then say "pyat', chetyre, tri, dva, raz" on tv doesn't mean they don't countdown. They do however launch manually, which is of course their good right. On the other hand, most of NASA's launches have been launches which are very complex (like for instance the Cassini-Huygens-project) which need to be launched at the exact moment, or else the satelite will miss it's destination.

Mistermystery · #50 19th April 2004, 07:45 AM

Originally Posted by Frumious Bandersnatch

Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy board

I had totally missed this, but yes, I can only support everything what the Bad astronomer says. Phil Plait is a very good source, which tries to debunk common misconceptions. And he does it in a way that most people can understand. Thanks for posting that TFB.