Who will win the Mars race?

[Ygrene Imref]

Absolutely.




They have huge scale models of the moon with camera tracks beside them. Of course it is staged.
Look at the movies that Hollywood can produce for a couple of million dollars and then compare the budget for NASA.

Why would you need a scale model of the moon unless you were going to film it to look like you were there?



Yes, the photos you see now are CGI. That means Computer Generated Images.... NASA even admits it. They even admit that all the photos of the earth are CGI because "they have to be".

The pictures of the earth from space have obvious evidence of photo shop's cloning tool as numerous cloud formations are copied and pasted all over the "globe".

HEY, if it took a Saturn V rocket, many stories high, to get out of earths orbit... why is it that the Lunar Module had no rocket engines at all to blast off from the moon and break out of gravity that is not non existent and, in fact, 1/6 of the strength of earth's gravity... would they not need a rocket engine at least 1/6 the size of the Saturn V... I know, I know the Lunar module was less weight compared to the command module, the lunar module and the rest of the equipment in nose of the Saturn V. BUT not that much smaller... Not enough to get off the moon with absolutely no rocket engines comparable to even 1/64 of the Saturn V... But, you can do anything with movie experts under the budget of NASA.

Not to mention that the camera that filmed... that's "filmed" the lunar module blasting off of the moon shows a flash of an explosion then.......nothing else. No engine blast, no propulsion hardware... just the living portion of the lunar module.

Then, the cherry on the top is the fact that this camera, with no operator, perfectly pans upward as the lunar module rises off the moon.

A bonus is how they got these filmed images of them leaving the moon, from a camera with film, from the camera to develop it and show it here on earth.

I have no doubt that they did not ever go to the moon.

Wow.

I may have to invest hope in humanity yet...

 

[Ygrene Imref]

On Aug. 7, 1972, in the heart of the Apollo era, an enormous solar flare exploded from the sun’s atmosphere. Along with a gigantic burst of light in nearly all wavelengths, this event accelerated a wave of energetic particles. Mostly protons, with a few electrons and heavier elements mixed in, this wash of quick-moving particles would have been dangerous to anyone outside Earth’s protective magnetic bubble. Luckily, the Apollo 16 crew had returned to Earth just five months earlier, narrowly escaping this powerful event.
How to Protect Astronauts from Space Radiation on Mars

You need a EM deflector strong enough to deflect particles caught in the magnetic field of earth itself to escape beyond to another planet. That means a plasma shield.

Either the world has ships with plasma shields, or they are pulling your educational leg having you think that metal can block high energy massive particles denaturing your DNA.

 

[Goatee]

The Russians knew.... Why do you think they never did anything more than sputnik....?

Let me ask.... have you looked into it or are you just trying to find reasons to find why it is not a lie instead of looking for evidence that it is impossible

I guess you believe in lots of other conspiracy stories too, about other events!

 

[Ygrene Imref]

The order of magnitude. We are all radiated all the time, right here on Earth. It's about how much, precisely.

Apollo Rocketed Through the Van Allen Belts

The atmosphere(s) and magnetic field of the planet deflects most radiation incident upon earth. What does make it to earth are usually photons, neutrinos and very low concentrations of ionizing radiation (<<1 proton/cm^3.)

This is not the case in the Van Allen belts. The flux of ionizing particles there is much greater (~1-2/cm^3), and must be deflected in the same way Cern deflects and directs protons - with variations in EM fields.

A non-plasma metal does not have a lattice structure tight enough to prevent ionizing radiation from penetrating the hull - which means you, and other things inside the ship will capture these particles.

Either we have plasma technology to deflect these particles now, or we have never been outside of the planet - unless the world has some other technology they want to admit to (like jump machines/interdimensional stargates.)

The reason you count the consecutive days of astronauts in (be)low orbit is because there is enough ionizing radiation in that shell to cause severe aging and problems (i.e. it penetrates the metal, and denatures DNA.)

 

[JacksBratt]

I guess you believe in lots of other conspiracy stories too, about other events!

Here is the question again:

Have you investigated the evidence for both sides OR Do you just go with the information that they have been feeding you since you were a kid?

If you just continue to deny a new view without investigating it for yourself................you are only perpetuating something that someone else told you. You are only regurgitating other peoples views to argue against my view.

You have view of your own. You have the view of someone else and are perpetuating their view without actually looking at it for yourself.

 

[JacksBratt]

I guess you believe in lots of other conspiracy stories too, about other events!

Now.... this statement makes me scratch my head...

Look at the logic:

1/ I profess to have a certain view that others here disagree with.
2/ Your conclusion is that I must, then, have other views that are controversial...

This is called assumption and speculation.

Fact is... I have the ability to look at the evidence and decide for myself that something I have been told "forever" is wrong. There are many things that I still believe. This is only because the evidence still shows them to be truth.

There is no rule that says "If you believe this conspiracy theory... you must believe them all".

Yet, this is what you are assuming.

 

[Halbhh]

Absolutely.




They have huge scale models of the moon with camera tracks beside them. Of course it is staged.
Look at the movies that Hollywood can produce for a couple of million dollars and then compare the budget for NASA.

Why would you need a scale model of the moon unless you were going to film it to look like you were there?



Yes, the photos you see now are CGI. That means Computer Generated Images.... NASA even admits it. They even admit that all the photos of the earth are CGI because "they have to be".

The pictures of the earth from space have obvious evidence of photo shop's cloning tool as numerous cloud formations are copied and pasted all over the "globe".

HEY, if it took a Saturn V rocket, many stories high, to get out of earths orbit... why is it that the Lunar Module had no rocket engines at all to blast off from the moon and break out of gravity that is not non existent and, in fact, 1/6 of the strength of earth's gravity... would they not need a rocket engine at least 1/6 the size of the Saturn V... I know, I know the Lunar module was less weight compared to the command module, the lunar module and the rest of the equipment in nose of the Saturn V. BUT not that much smaller... Not enough to get off the moon with absolutely no rocket engines comparable to even 1/64 of the Saturn V... But, you can do anything with movie experts under the budget of NASA.

Not to mention that the camera that filmed... that's "filmed" the lunar module blasting off of the moon shows a flash of an explosion then.......nothing else. No engine blast, no propulsion hardware... just the living portion of the lunar module.

Then, the cherry on the top is the fact that this camera, with no operator, perfectly pans upward as the lunar module rises off the moon.

A bonus is how they got these filmed images of them leaving the moon, from a camera with film, from the camera to develop it and show it here on earth.

I have no doubt that they did not ever go to the moon.

If you have an error in a detail, do you want someone to point it out in a friendly way? I haven't known anyone in the sciences that hasn't occasionally had an error they had to correct.

 

[Landon Caeli]

Exactly. However, one of the biggest obstacles to the Mars mission, supposedly, is that they must go through the Van Allen belts of radioactive particles and they do not have the ability to shield the space craft or the astronauts with the technology they have.

But, we are expected to believe that they did it in the 70's......? In a tin can?

Who told you that the Van Allen belts are so lethal?

 

[Goonie]

Who told you that the Van Allen belts are so lethal?

YouTube I suspect.

 

[Douger]

He owns a Boring company and a Solar one and one to do with brain research. The earth based challenges of solar power and public transit systems are also complementary to the kinds of technology development needed for Mars

Tunneling will be a very important part of space colonization to be sure. Underground structures make a lot more sense long term than the shiny dome tent thingies.
I vote SpaceX making it there first. They've got the technology, the drive and most importantly, the celebrity billionaire fundraiser to pull it off.
It's going to be very interesting when a branch of humanity and their new home world are established and run by a corporation. Will SpaceX "own" Mars? Or try to? What happens when Disney tries to set up a colony?

 

[Goonie]

Tunneling will be a very important part of space colonization to be sure. Underground structures make a lot more sense long term than the shiny dome tent thingies.
I vote SpaceX making it there first. They've got the technology, the drive and most importantly, the celebrity billionaire fundraiser to pull it off.
It's going to be very interesting when a branch of humanity and their new home world are established and run by a corporation. Will SpaceX "own" Mars? Or try to? What happens when Disney tries to set up a colony?

The future of space exploration/mining is AI and robots not people. And I think earth is going to run out of resources before even tat becomes feasible.

 

[mindlight]

Apollo involved very brief missions. And the IIS hits several limits -- 6 months in the ISS hits the lifetime radiation exposure limit, and that period of weightlessness also causes optic nerve damage.

My own gut feel is that the best way to test a Mars colony would be with a Moon colony. But even that would be hard.



Well no. They just think they can get the funds.

I would have liked to see a moon colony too and it may still happen. The moon is an easier tourist destination. I do not think a Mars initiative and a moon one are mutually exclusive - especially regarding the rocket lift capability. But the money and interest seem to be with Mars right now. Also the moon and Mars bases are different kinds of challenge. If ,as I believe Musk has suggested ,the journey time is as low as 30 days and if the Mars bases are properly shielded or underground, radiation might not be such a massive barrier to success.

Peoples eyesight was damaged in zero gravity on ISS for reasons that are understood. But Mars has partial gravity (.38 g i think) so it is a different case. But still needs research.

 

[mindlight]

Tunneling will be a very important part of space colonization to be sure. Underground structures make a lot more sense long term than the shiny dome tent thingies.
I vote SpaceX making it there first. They've got the technology, the drive and most importantly, the celebrity billionaire fundraiser to pull it off.
It's going to be very interesting when a branch of humanity and their new home world are established and run by a corporation. Will SpaceX "own" Mars? Or try to? What happens when Disney tries to set up a colony?

Good post and questions. A government base would probably have a definite code of rules and earth based command structure. A corporation that makes its money out of getting people there would have to make some effort to make the destination palatable to keep the. Customers coming. Would the base itself be more wild west than East coast - do not know. Not sure how freedom works on Mars. If you leave the colony to strike off on your own your survival chances are slim without substantial resources so I suppose individualism is less attractive there. That ability to thrive will require a strong Martian manufacturing, construction, food supply and transport concept.

 

[mindlight]

The future of space exploration/mining is AI and robots not people. And I think earth is going to run out of resources before even tat becomes feasible.

There is no point to space unless it benefits human beings. There is big money to be made from tourism, mining and energy sectors. Once these are mobilised resources might become cheap and plentiful. It is life and the green stuff that is short supply out there. The Saturn moon Enceladus is mainly water ice for instance but only some 5% of the water mass of the earths oceans

 

[Landon Caeli]

I would have liked to see a moon colony too and it may still happen. The moon is an easier tourist destination. I do not think a Mars initiative and a moon one are mutually exclusive - especially regarding the rocket lift capability. But the money and interest seem to be with Mars right now. Also the moon and Mars bases are different kinds of challenge. If ,as I believe Musk has suggested ,the journey time is as low as 30 days and if the Mars bases are properly shielded or underground, radiation might not be such a massive barrier to success.

Peoples eyesight was damaged in zero gravity on ISS for reasons that are understood. But Mars has partial gravity (.38 g i think) so it is a different case. But still needs research.

I agree It would be better to use the moon as a launch site to mars, since there is less gravitational resistance. It would be cheaper in the long run.

...It seems like it was just 'meant-to-be'.

 

[JacksBratt]

Who told you that the Van Allen belts are so lethal?

Here, go to the 3:30 minute mark if you don't want to waste too much time. This is a NASA engineer stating that we cannot send humans up this far and must "solve this problem before we send people to this region of space".

 

[JacksBratt]

YouTube I suspect.

Oh, man... you say that like "YouTube" is a being, an entity.... sheesh... how long is it going to be before people realize that YouTube is for cat videos, crazy pranks, serious presentations, and everything else under the sun....

I guess that an engineer from NASA cannot be believed if they are on YouTube but totally believable if they are in a classroom... Oh Ya.. unless that classroom session is posted on YouTube, then it is a lie...


Wake up people... YouTube is a source of everything... truth, humor and everything else. Don't use "they saw it on YouTube as a reason to discredit their evidence.

 

[JacksBratt]

The future of space exploration/mining is AI and robots not people. And I think earth is going to run out of resources before even tat becomes feasible.

Nobody or no robot or no satellite is going to space. The temperatures of space are extreme and will fry any electronics, and melt circuit boards..... Unless you know how your cell phone would last in an oven at 250 degrees Fahrenheit or function at minus 148 degrees Fahrenheit.

This solar radiation heats the space near Earth to 393.15 kelvins (120 degrees Celsius or 248 degrees Fahrenheit) or higher, while shaded objects plummet to temperatures lower than 173.5 kelvins (minus 100 degrees Celsius or minus 148 degrees Fahrenheit).

from: The Temperatures of Outer Space Around the Earth

Astronomers tell us that the solar wind and interstellar gas clouds are over a thousand degrees and sometimes in the millions, but also that the cosmic background temperature is minus 455 degrees Fahrenheit. A thermometer in space will read somewhere between these two extremes, depending on whether it's in the sun or the shade.

From: What's the Temperature in Outer Space?

 

[Radagast]

Nobody or no robot or no satellite is going to space.

All those satellite dishes are a vast hoax, then...

 

[Ygrene Imref]

All those satellite dishes are a vast hoax, then...

He said space, not (LOW) orbit within the Van Allen belts.

And, satellites do fail when they reach a "dead" zone in which they are inadvertently exposed to ionizing radiation. Signals (EM waves) can be perturbed by the scattering energy of ionizing radiation.