Who will win the Mars race?

[Radagast]

According to Elon Musk, sending 12 people to Mars will cost around $10 Billion per person.

Those are some expensive tickets.

 

[Nithavela]

You voted not going to happen

Oh, I think that it should happen, I'm just not optimistic about it. I think humankind is far too occupied making each other miserable to strive for its only salvation, which lies in the stars.

 

[Targaryen]

If a SpaceX mission is successful then it will be to a great extent because they have utilised NASA experience. But so also it will be because the ITS concept is far bolder than the SLS one and SpaceX are not bound by the risk adverse culture, limited budget and lack of political focus that has crippled NASA since Apollo.

If the ship is larger, the payload larger, if there are more than one ship, if the ship is faster, then the opportunities for extra radiation shielding, extra redundancy in equipment and addition of more technologies to utilise Martian materials is all possible.

NASA could still win if the ITS never gets off the ground and there is a bolder vision from the Whitehouse. Trump is better than Obama on this but not yet a Kennedy!

SpaceX would go broke on a one way unmanned mission, never mind a manned mission. As for "martian materials" so suddenly, these hypothetical crews are going to be doing mining or who knows what else along side scientific research? Specially when it's a civilian concern? Please.

Also Trump's been in office 8 months and hasn't done a thing about either NASA or any space program. Give me a break.

 

[mindlight]

According to Elon Musk, sending 12 people to Mars will cost around $10 Billion per person.

Those are some expensive tickets.

Read the full article and especially the SpaceX explanatory document. $10bn is the current price with existing tech. The aim is to get the costs down to $100,000 per person. Reusability, the ITS design, fuel depots on Mars etc all being factors for bringing costs down

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/elon-musk-details-his-plan-colonize-mars-ncna772756

 

[mindlight]

SpaceX would go broke on a one way unmanned mission, never mind a manned mission. As for "martian materials" so suddenly, these hypothetical crews are going to be doing mining or who knows what else along side scientific research? Specially when it's a civilian concern? Please.

Also Trump's been in office 8 months and hasn't done a thing about either NASA or any space program. Give me a break.

SpaceX have focused on the transportation side of things including the creation of the propellant on Mars. This article from SpaceX explains that side:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/elon-musk-details-his-plan-colonize-mars-ncna772756

But the actual Mars colony is a different project with a different management team.

Mars One

 

[Radagast]

Read the full article and especially the SpaceX explanatory document. $10bn is the current price with existing tech. The aim is to get the costs down to $100,000 per person. Reusability, the ITS design, fuel depots on Mars etc all being factors for bringing costs down

Actually, that $100,000 number is the cost per person if more than a million people go. But those kind of numbers won't sign up unless a small-scale colony has been going for some years.

 

[Radagast]

But the actual Mars colony is a different project with a different management team.

You mean that building, maintaining, and supplying the colony is not factored into Musk's costs?

 

[dgiharris]

You mean that building, maintaining, and supplying the colony is not factored into Musk's costs?

I am one of the most ardent proponents of the human race getting to Mars...
And I'm a huge Elan Musk fanboy and I wish him all the best...

But the reality is, It will take a governmental agency to lay the ground work to provide the "initial" trip to Mars. Reason being, the initial infrastructure required to support a trip and risks are just too high for a commercial entity to absorb into their Return on Investment calculations. One could quite literally burn through a tens of billions of dollars and a dozen human lives prior to getting a successful Mars mission. And then, once we get a successful Mars mission, turning an actual profit is going to take some time as well.

It is my hope the Elan Musk basically shames the worlds' governments into paving the way to Mars. As RDKirk says, we need a permanent launch station in orbit. In addition, a boatload of equipment needs to be sent ahead of the mission.

Funny, I was just watching some documentaries about the whole Housing Market Meltdown in 2008. Some estimate that as much as 19 TRILLION dollars evaporated from the world economy due to that incident.

Imagine what the space program would look like if we invested 19 Trillion dollars into it. We could have a thriving Lunar Colony, Space station, and Mars Colony as well as a colony on an Asteroid and maybe even an outpost orbiting Jupiter... We could have a huge low Earth orbit manufacturing facility producing high tech components for a fraction of the cost that it takes to produce them on Earth ( High tech clean rooms would be orders of magnitude cheaper in space than on Earth)

What a shame really...

 

[Radagast]

It is my hope the Elan Musk basically shames the worlds' governments into paving the way to Mars. As RDKirk says, we need a permanent launch station in orbit. In addition, a boatload of equipment needs to be sent ahead of the mission.

I can't believe Elon Musk is really serious. Sending people to the moon involved multiple test trips (including Apollo 1 to 10), checking whether the process could be carried out safely. Apart from this not terribly realistic test, I haven't seen any such testing for Mars.

 

[JacksBratt]

It was designed to do that. Also, it had attitude thrusters.

Of course! That's it! What was I thinking? It fell, perfectly aligned so that the heat shield took the friction....due to their "designing it that way".......that rules out any possible reasons for it being total nonsense.....

Sheesh, they could tell you anything was "designed that way" and you would believer it? This is where believing anything without investigating it's truth...........it dangerous.

As for "attitude Thrusters"........again....where was the fuel for such devices? They would have had to be very powerful to combat the incredible wind shear of their thrust and there is no way that the computer technology at that time could compensate for the intricate adjustments that would have been necessary.

People believe this because they watched all the space fiction at the time and you can do anything in fiction... applications to real life are impossible.

There was a special ablative heat shield. Back in the 60s there was a great publicity shot of a kitten sitting over a roaring bunsen burner, with only a thin heat shield in between. The kitten felt no heat at all.

Nice! They use a big word like "ablative" and everyone swallows it.

ab·la·tive
ˈablədiv/
adjective
adjective: ablative

1. 1.
   Grammar
   relating to or denoting a case (especially in Latin) of nouns and pronouns (and words in grammatical agreement with them) indicating separation or an agent, instrument, or location.
2. 2.
   (of surgical treatment) involving ablation.
3. 3.
   relating to or subject to ablation through melting or evaporation.
   "the spacecraft's ablative heat shield"

noun
Grammar
noun: ablative; plural noun: ablatives
1.
a word in the ablative case.

Whoa........ now that explains it..... well not really.... well not at all.....

So, this Bunsen burner was able to heat this "ablative" heat shield to temperatures equal to those that would have been experienced on the underside of the capsule? That would be 2706 degrees Celsius to 5000 degrees Celsius or higher at mach 20 to 50...

The hottest part of the Bunsen flame, which is found just above the tip of the primary flame, reaches about 1,500 °C (2,700 °F). With too little air, the gas mixture will not burn completely and will form tiny carbon particles that are heated to glowing, making the flame luminous.
From:Bunsen burner.

Anyone for fired kitty?

Enough for the job. And the computer wasn't crippled by running Windows.

And yes, they were brilliant. NASA recruited some of the best people in the country.

Yet, there are still brilliant people at NASA that cannot go to the moon today due to this "lost" technology and computers that are billions of times faster and DO NOT have to run windows to operate.

Any computer can run without being hobbled by Windows. Windows is just an interface between user and other computer languages. It is not mandatory and my kids graphing calculator has more power than the Apollo computers and does not operate on Windows.

The ascent stage of the lunar module had its own rocket engine, of course.

Can you please post a picture of this "ascent stage" showing where it hid these "rocket engines"?

There is absolutely no place or room for these supposed engine on the portion that took them from the moon to the command module. This is the engine that was supposed to get them off the moon. What a joke.

Kinetic energy is ½ m v^2. In this case, mass was 1/640 of the Saturn V, and escape velocity was 0.213 times Earth, meaning energy needed was 1/14,000 as much as for the Saturn V.

Nice math. However, the mass of the Saturn V was all FUEL. Fuel needed to get the small tiny payload out of earths gravitational pull.

So, showing math is a brilliant smoke screen but still does not negate the fact that you would need significantly more rocket fuel than is in the tiny little compartment above the impressive but useless nozzel shown in the fake ascent vehicle.
The moon is not zero gravity... it still has 1/6 of the earths gravity... but when someone asks a tough question...... hit them with "MATH". I don't fall for that nonsense.

Actually, 360 kg -- a bit more than a third of a metric tonne. But they were very high-energy silver-zinc batteries -- basically giant version of watch batteries.

This could be. I have to head out the door so cannot investigate right now.

That was taken by the third astronaut from the CSM, which was in orbit around the moon.

I thought you said you had "investigated" this? Not very well, obviously.

Or, so they say. Given the above smoke and mirrors, I would say it was taken in a basement.

 

[RDKirk]

I am one of the most ardent proponents of the human race getting to Mars...
And I'm a huge Elan Musk fanboy and I wish him all the best...

But the reality is, It will take a governmental agency to lay the ground work to provide the "initial" trip to Mars. Reason being, the initial infrastructure required to support a trip and risks are just too high for a commercial entity to absorb into their Return on Investment calculations. One could quite literally burn through a tens of billions of dollars and a dozen human lives prior to getting a successful Mars mission. And then, once we get a successful Mars mission, turning an actual profit is going to take some time as well.

It is my hope the Elan Musk basically shames the worlds' governments into paving the way to Mars. As RDKirk says, we need a permanent launch station in orbit. In addition, a boatload of equipment needs to be sent ahead of the mission.

It's kind of ironic.

There is an old SF movie "Destination Moon" released in 1950, written by one of the old SF greats Robert Heinlein. The movie is rather dull, but very much like "2001: A Space Odyssey" in its detailed depiction of what they critically thought space travel would entail at the time.

The first part of the movie involved an Elan Musk-type character putting the mission together as a commercial venture--explicitly because a moon landing would be too large, expensive, and take too much manpower and brainpower for any government to entertain.

That was a revelation of actual pre-military-industrial complex thinking in the era before the Cold War took over. That was back when the US government scaled up for war, then scaled way, way, way back after the war concluded.

But back then, we did have the gigantic Howard Hughes figures, and perhaps Elan Musk is one like that.

 

[mindlight]

Actually, that $100,000 number is the cost per person if more than a million people go. But those kind of numbers won't sign up unless a small-scale colony has been going for some years.

That is the goal cost. The $10bn per person current cost quoted by Musk a year ago does not refer to his own technology improvements since. Reusability of engines, bigger rockets allowing economies of scale being two changes to the traditional model. With the ITS the cost should come down even further. But ultimately lower costs do depend on a scale commitment. The vision is of a million person city on Mars by which time a 1000 ITS ships would be catering for 200 passengers each. That is where the $100000 price tag is quoted

As far as I know there is no cost estimate of what an initial Mars trip would cost on a Falcon Heavy or on an ITS. Nor what the crew size would be, whether it would be a return trip or serve the purpose of setting up the transport infrastructure and basic base to support future expansion.

 

[dgiharris]

It's kind of ironic.

There is an old SF movie "Destination Moon" released in 1950, written by one of the old SF greats Robert Heinlein. The movie is rather dull, but very much like "2001: A Space Odyssey" in its detailed depiction of what they critically thought space travel would entail at the time.

The first part of the movie involved an Elan Musk-type character putting the mission together as a commercial venture--explicitly because a moon landing would be too large, expensive, and take too much manpower and brainpower for any government to entertain.

That was a revelation of actual pre-military-industrial complex thinking in the era before the Cold War took over. That was back when the US government scaled up for war, then scaled way, way, way back after the war concluded.

But back then, we did have the gigantic Howard Hughes figures, and perhaps Elan Musk is one like that.

Irony on top of irony, paradoxes atop of paradoxes...

I think that a commercial enterprise to Mars would realize the optimal path to Mars, however as i stated it is just too expensive unless....

Unless several mega huge corporations ban together creating a "new" type of corporation equivalent to major governments in power. This Mega-Corp would have to be so big and have such deep pockets that it can afford to think in terms of not just years, but decades down the line. Basically, it would have to be big enough to absorb 3 or 4 decades of expenses before it even entertained the notion of breaking even and showing a profit.

It would also need to envision more than just Mars: Space Mining, Space Manufacturing, Space Medicine/Medical procedures.

With all of the radiation in space, there have got to be tons of unique isotopes collecting on the Moon's surface (like Helium 3) and in Asteroids. We've also reached the point in our technology where manufacturing high tech stuff (semiconductors, nanotechnology, etc) is actually cheaper and better in space as opposed to Earth. Then there are some medical procedures and even recovery that would be better in space (no gravity) as opposed to Earth. I mentioned this earlier, but one of the BIG problems with growing organs on Earth in petri dishes and artificial wombs is that of gravity. It is a HUGE problem but a problem you don't have in space

all of the above would take DECADES to realize and a Trillion dollars worth of initial cost in the form of exploration and infrastructure.

It really is sad, as a species we don't blink an eye spending a Trillion dollars on needless war and feeding the Military Industrial Complex. However, spending a Trillion dollars on space to bring about a new epoch for mankind is something we balk at.

It is my opinion that a hundred years from now they are going to regard us in the same ignorant light that we regard those during the Salem Witch Trials and the Dark Ages. We literally have at our disposal the technological means to bring about a new era for mankind. We can literally end starvation, homelessness, even dramatically increase life expectancy and quality of life of everyone in the world... and yet we are too busy thumping our chests and flinging poo at one another while squabbling over the black goo that is beneath the earth's crust. Nevermind that there are infinite resources in space now within our grasps. No. We are too blind and short sighted to see it and instead, opt to fight over the same old stuff we've been fighting for for centuries...

 

[dgiharris]

Of course! That's it! What was I thinking? It fell, perfectly aligned so that the heat shield took the friction....due to their "designing it that way".......that rules out any possible reasons for it being total nonsense.....

Sheesh, they could tell you anything was "designed that way" and you would believer it? This is where believing anything without investigating it's truth...........it dangerous.

As for "attitude Thrusters"........again....where was the fuel for such devices? They would have had to be very powerful to combat the incredible wind shear of their thrust and there is no way that the computer technology at that time could compensate for the intricate adjustments that would have been necessary.

People believe this because they watched all the space fiction at the time and you can do anything in fiction... applications to real life are impossible.





Nice! They use a big word like "ablative" and everyone swallows it.

ab·la·tive
ˈablədiv/
adjective
adjective: ablative

1. 1.
   Grammar
   relating to or denoting a case (especially in Latin) of nouns and pronouns (and words in grammatical agreement with them) indicating separation or an agent, instrument, or location.
2. 2.
   (of surgical treatment) involving ablation.
3. 3.
   relating to or subject to ablation through melting or evaporation.
   "the spacecraft's ablative heat shield"

noun
Grammar
noun: ablative; plural noun: ablatives
1.
a word in the ablative case.

Whoa........ now that explains it..... well not really.... well not at all.....

So, this Bunsen burner was able to heat this "ablative" heat shield to temperatures equal to those that would have been experienced on the underside of the capsule? That would be 2706 degrees Celsius to 5000 degrees Celsius or higher at mach 20 to 50...

The hottest part of the Bunsen flame, which is found just above the tip of the primary flame, reaches about 1,500 °C (2,700 °F). With too little air, the gas mixture will not burn completely and will form tiny carbon particles that are heated to glowing, making the flame luminous.
From:Bunsen burner.

Anyone for fired kitty?



Yet, there are still brilliant people at NASA that cannot go to the moon today due to this "lost" technology and computers that are billions of times faster and DO NOT have to run windows to operate.

Any computer can run without being hobbled by Windows. Windows is just an interface between user and other computer languages. It is not mandatory and my kids graphing calculator has more power than the Apollo computers and does not operate on Windows.





Can you please post a picture of this "ascent stage" showing where it hid these "rocket engines"?

There is absolutely no place or room for these supposed engine on the portion that took them from the moon to the command module. This is the engine that was supposed to get them off the moon. What a joke.

Nice math. However, the mass of the Saturn V was all FUEL. Fuel needed to get the small tiny payload out of earths gravitational pull.

So, showing math is a brilliant smoke screen but still does not negate the fact that you would need significantly more rocket fuel than is in the tiny little compartment above the impressive but useless nozzel shown in the fake ascent vehicle.
The moon is not zero gravity... it still has 1/6 of the earths gravity... but when someone asks a tough question...... hit them with "MATH". I don't fall for that nonsense.




This could be. I have to head out the door so cannot investigate right now.





Or, so they say. Given the above smoke and mirrors, I would say it was taken in a basement.

I read through your reply and even watched the video of the astronaut "supposedly" saying we don't have the technology "anymore" to go to the moon.

I would like to clarify what he said.

He said we destroyed the technology we used to get to the moon. This could be an absolutely true statement. We've only been to the moon a handful of times way way way back in late 60s and 70s. The technology used to get to the moon back then would be so obsolete now that maintaining it would make zero economic sense especially since technology has evolved.

You are focusing on the wrong thing. Not having the technological gadgets of yesteryear is "different" than not having the technological means to recreate or even improve upon the gadgets of yesteryear.

Do you understand the difference?

THere are tons of things in which we "no longer have the technology". There are thousands of widgets and gadgets of the 18th and 19th and even 20th century that have become obsolete and/or not maintained. However, that is "different" than technological means. For the most part, we still have the "Technological means" to recreate that lost technology or a better modern analogue...

reading through your reply, you are hell bent on believing the moon landing was fake.

Can I ask you a serious question? Was launching of Sputnik fake? What about Voyager? What about the Mars lander? What about Hubble Telescope and the Space Station?

The reason I ask is that it is all along the same "level of technology".

in effect, lets say that I am putting forth the argument that Blue Ray DVD's are fake and an impossible technology. I claim that it is "impossible" to put a movie on a DVD.

Now, someone hands me a CD. A CD is a very similar technology to a DVD, it uses lasers to read the information, it digitizes the information into 1s and 0s just like a DVD. If CDs exist and CDs are the same technological principles and level as a DVD, then why would I find it so hard to believe that BLue Ray DVD's exist. But for some reason I do.

Then, you bring me a normal DVD that uses the red laser, so not blue ray, but still, pretty darn close. Works on the exact same principle as Blue Ray DVDs just uses a different laser and has lessor capabilities but fundamentally is very similar. Would it make sense for me to still maintain that Blue Rays are just "impossible".

The moon landing and going to the moon is in the same "level" of technology as launching Sputnik, sending probes to Mars and Jupiter and beyond, building the International Space Station, putting satellites into orbit, etc etc.

It is cognitive dissonance of a very high order to still maintain something is "fake" when equivalent technology and actions are readily available and all over the place. Thus, the only logical way you can believe the moon landing was fake is if you likewise believe a lot of other stuff is fake too., That is the only way to be logically consistent. If you believe the moon landing was fake then you should also believe that satellites are fake, probes launched to Mars and Jupiter etc are fake, that the hubble telescope is fake, and that the International Space Station is fake.

 

[RDKirk]

I read through your reply and even watched the video of the astronaut "supposedly" saying we don't have the technology "anymore" to go to the moon.

I would like to clarify what he said.

He said we destroyed the technology we used to get to the moon. This could be an absolutely true statement. We've only been to the moon a handful of times way way way back in late 60s and 70s. The technology used to get to the moon back then would be so obsolete now that maintaining it would make zero economic sense especially since technology has evolved.

You are focusing on the wrong thing. Not having the technological gadgets of yesteryear is "different" than not having the technological means to recreate or even improve upon the gadgets of yesteryear.

Do you understand the difference?

THere are tons of things in which we "no longer have the technology". There are thousands of widgets and gadgets of the 18th and 19th and even 20th century that have become obsolete and/or not maintained. However, that is "different" than technological means. For the most part, we still have the "Technological means" to recreate that lost technology or a better modern analogue....

Here is something I know we can't do: We cannot build another SR-71 reconnaissance plane.

In fact, we couldn't build another even in the late 80s. The tooling had already been destroyed by Congressional order, and the few times we tried to get replacement parts built, the efforts failed horribly.

We got a new set of U-2 aircraft in the early 80s that were supposed to be plug-in capable clones of the original U-2 aircraft...but they weren't. The new fleet was rather like getting a Windows update...some old applications worked, some didn't. Technicians had to do a whole lot of runway modifications.

Hard to imagine, but US manufacturing capability of the 60s was already crumbling by the late 80s.

Supposedly Lockheed-Martin has plans to build a true hyper-MACH followon to the SR-71, and I don't doubt they have the technology to do so (although I doubt there is the political will to do so, and I don't think there is an operational need for it). But they don't have the ability to build another SR-71.

 

[dgiharris]

Here is something I know we can't do: We cannot build another SR-71 reconnaissance plane.

In fact, we couldn't build another even in the late 80s. The tooling had already been destroyed by Congressional order, and the few times we tried to get replacement parts built, the efforts failed horribly.

We got a new set of U-2 aircraft in the early 80s that were supposed to be plug-in capable clones of the original U-2 aircraft...but they weren't. The new fleet was rather like getting a Windows update...some old applications worked, some didn't. Technicians had to do a whole lot of runway modifications.

Hard to imagine, but US manufacturing capability of the 60s was already crumbling by the late 80s.

Supposedly Lockheed-Martin has plans to build a true hyper-MACH followon to the SR-71, and I don't doubt they have the technology to do so (although I doubt there is the political will to do so, and I don't think there is an operational need for it). But they don't have the ability to build another SR-71.

one of the rare instances I will disagree with you.

but...

Depends by what you mean by build "another" SR-71.

If you mean build an exact SR-71 then I can agree with you. I've done R&D and I can tell you from first hand experience that there is a little bit of "art" that goes into building a technological wonder and if you destroy the tooling then yeah, getting an exact SR-71 will be impossible.

however, building something "equivalent or better" to the SR-71 is something that we can do if we are willing to spend the money, time, and resources to do so.

So could we build an exact replica of the original moon missiles, rockets, and ships. No. No we cannot. However, we can build something better.

 

[RDKirk]

one of the rare instances I will disagree with you.

but...

Depends by what you mean by build "another" SR-71.

If you mean build an exact SR-71 then I can agree with you. I've done R&D and I can tell you from first hand experience that there is a little bit of "art" that goes into building a technological wonder and if you destroy the tooling then yeah, getting an exact SR-71 will be impossible.

however, building something "equivalent or better" to the SR-71 is something that we can do if we are willing to spend the money, time, and resources to do so.

So could we build an exact replica of the original moon missiles, rockets, and ships. No. No we cannot. However, we can build something better.

That's why I said:

Supposedly Lockheed-Martin has plans to build a true hyper-MACH followon to the SR-71, and I don't doubt they have the technology to do so

 

[JacksBratt]

Do you understand the difference?

Yes, I understand the difference. 1/ Not having the Know how or 2/ not having the hardware.

However, I have to ask, is this not like saying we used to go to the village by bike, now the bike is broken and we are designing a car to take us to the city but since the bike is broke we don't have the ability to go to the village... only the city.

Seriously? They are trying to go to mars but the moon would be, how did he put it... "painful" to get that ability back.

THere are tons of things in which we "no longer have the technology". There are thousands of widgets and gadgets of the 18th and 19th and even 20th century that have become obsolete and/or not maintained. However, that is "different" than technological means. For the most part, we still have the "Technological means" to recreate that lost technology or a better modern analogue...

Maybe you could give me an example of something we no longer have the technology to accomplish.
The way I see it.... things become obsolete due to a better method of doing the same thing.

Like, for instance, we used to go to Hawaii by ship but now by plane. Or, we used to chop wood with a hand saw then an axe. Where now we use a chainsaw and a hydraulic wood splitter.

We don't say... well, I would like to go to Africa but the planes that flew to Africa are obsolete. However we are trying to build a plane to fly to Australia....

Do you see the difference?

reading through your reply, you are hell bent on believing the moon landing was fake.

Reading though other peoples replies.... they are "hell bent on believing a lie"

My replies should state that I see flaws, impossibilities, facts and physical limitations that are still problematic even today that prove that it never has been possible.

 

[JacksBratt]

Can I ask you a serious question? Was launching of Sputnik fake?

Don't know

What about Voyager?

Don't know.

What about the Mars lander?

Fake fake fake

What about Hubble Telescope

Fake fake fake... all the images are nothing but CGI. Want to prove me wrong? Have them zoom in on Pluto or Jupiter or any other object in our solar system instead of looking light years out into our galaxy... show us a good clear in focus shot.... nothing is anything but CGI.

and the Space Station?

Seriously? Have you not researched this at all. They are making all kinds of mistakes....The videos of the women with rigid hair sprayed hair is hilarious. Then there are the ones where the guys have pulls in their shirts where their harnesses are attached. It's just an insult to our intelligence to believe that they are up there with the pathetic videos they use to try to show us where they are.

The reason I ask is that it is all along the same "level of technology".

Going to the moon with three live humans.... landing, walking around, driving a buggy, picking up rocks, blasting off again and coming back to earth is far far more difficult than an orbiting mail box.

in effect, lets say that I am putting forth the argument that Blue Ray DVD's are fake and an impossible technology. I claim that it is "impossible" to put a movie on a DVD.

Now, someone hands me a CD. A CD is a very similar technology to a DVD, it uses lasers to read the information, it digitizes the information into 1s and 0s just like a DVD. If CDs exist and CDs are the same technological principles and level as a DVD, then why would I find it so hard to believe that BLue Ray DVD's exist. But for some reason I do.

Then, you bring me a normal DVD that uses the red laser, so not blue ray, but still, pretty darn close. Works on the exact same principle as Blue Ray DVDs just uses a different laser and has lessor capabilities but fundamentally is very similar. Would it make sense for me to still maintain that Blue Rays are just "impossible".

I don't see how this argument is even close to being a parallel. Nothing has been proven by anything or anyone... It's all presented by NASA with a large enough budget to fake it all and make really good movies.

The moon landing and going to the moon is in the same "level" of technology as launching Sputnik, sending probes to Mars and Jupiter and beyond, building the International Space Station, putting satellites into orbit, etc etc.

Not even close... or... they would not be stumped by a simple thing like protecting the astronauts from the radiation of the Van Allen Belts ... Which posed no problem or adverse health affects 48 years ago.

It is cognitive dissonance of a very high order to still maintain something is "fake" when equivalent technology and actions are readily available and all over the place.

See, you believe that the technology exists. You believe it because the ones that are perpetrating the lie are the same ones telling you that the technology exists.

We do not have the technology... never had it.

We do, however, have the ability, technology and they have the $$$ to make really good movies that show fictional things taking place while telling everyone they are real events. Compare the movie "Gravity" with the space walks of today.

Thus, the only logical way you can believe the moon landing was fake is if you likewise believe a lot of other stuff is fake too.,

Like what?

That is the only way to be logically consistent. If you believe the moon landing was fake then you should also believe that satellites are fake,

I don't think it is impossible to make an object orbit the earth.... But... humans, to the moon... nope.

probes launched to Mars and Jupiter etc are fake, that the hubble telescope is fake, and that the International Space Station is fake.

The ISS is underwater, the astronauts are on green screen, the vomit comet, and hung by slings in a studio. The girls hair is ridiculous.

 

[dgiharris]

Don't know
Don't know.

Fake fake fake Fake fake fake... all the images are nothing but CGI. Want to prove me wrong? Have them zoom in on Pluto or Jupiter or any other object in our solar system instead of looking light years out into our galaxy... show us a good clear in focus shot.... nothing is anything but CGI.

Seriously? Have you not researched this at all. They are making all kinds of mistakes....The videos of the women with rigid hair sprayed hair is hilarious. Then there are the ones where the guys have pulls in their shirts where their harnesses are attached. It's just an insult to our intelligence to believe that they are up there with the pathetic videos they use to try to show us where they are.



Going to the moon with three live humans.... landing, walking around, driving a buggy, picking up rocks, blasting off again and coming back to earth is far far more difficult than an orbiting mail box.


I don't see how this argument is even close to being a parallel. Nothing has been proven by anything or anyone... It's all presented by NASA with a large enough budget to fake it all and make really good movies.



Not even close... or... they would not be stumped by a simple thing like protecting the astronauts from the radiation of the Van Allen Belts ... Which posed no problem or adverse health affects 48 years ago.


See, you believe that the technology exists. You believe it because the ones that are perpetrating the lie are the same ones telling you that the technology exists.

We do not have the technology... never had it.

We do, however, have the ability, technology and they have the $$$ to make really good movies that show fictional things taking place while telling everyone they are real events. Compare the movie "Gravity" with the space walks of today.





Like what?




I don't think it is impossible to make an object orbit the earth.... But... humans, to the moon... nope.



The ISS is underwater, the astronauts are on green screen, the vomit comet, and hung by slings in a studio. The girls hair is ridiculous.

I actually have a little more respect for you because even though I believe you are wrong, you are logically consistent and I always find merit in logically consistent arguments.

I don't think you understand about technological levels though. A jet plane is way more complex than a car, however, they are the same "level" of technology. The technological processes, science, and engineering that enables you to build a BMW is within the same "realm" as building a car.

Thus, if we can put a satellite into orbit, and build submarines, and build an A-bomb, and build the Empire State building and Golden Gate Bridge and supersonic jets... then we can go to the moon. I've already made that point so I will stop there.

Lastly, one of the reasons why I firmly believe we went to the moon is because I've built and designed complex systems. I've gone through the equations required to get to the moon. And basically, if I can do it, then other scientists and engineers way smarter than me with billions of dollars backing them can do it. So it is plausible. It's not some impossible thing that needs to be faked.

For instance, launching probes into space can all be tracked by Earth with telescopes. So how do you "fake" that? How do you fake out thousands of people and governmental agencies tracking items in space with radar and telescopes? You could see the space station with a telescope so how do you fake that?

In any event, this discussion has run its course. I'm sorry I could not dissuade you.