2018 Moon Launch? 104 Billion. Wow!!

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
jra -- I'm not saying telescopes don't work. I'm saying they work almost as well as the Hubble, maybe better, based on the moon pics we're getting from the Hubble.


Ok resistance, you win. On a dark night, take one of those backyard telescopes and point it at the night sky.

When you find your home planet, send them a message to come pick you up as you have finally confounded and confused us mere lowly humans...




posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by wetwarez

Originally posted by resistance
jra -- I'm not saying telescopes don't work. I'm saying they work almost as well as the Hubble, maybe better, based on the moon pics we're getting from the Hubble.


Ok resistance, you win. On a dark night, take one of those backyard telescopes and point it at the night sky.

When you find your home planet, send them a message to come pick you up as you have finally confounded and confused us mere lowly humans...


Dear Wet -- Well, I've looked through those backyard telescopes before, and IMO you can see the moon just about as well as the pictures I've been shown the Hubble took. Telescopes don't have resolution? Hubble's resolution is too low. What else is wrong with Hubble that it can't get a decent pic of the moon? I know the thing is big, that it cost a large fortune, and that it's "out there" a couple hundred miles closer to the moon than the earth is, and that there's less atomosphere blocking its view. So how come its moon pics are so lousy?

If you want my opinion, I think the Hubble is an overpriced piece of junk floating around in space that someday will fall down and make a big mess.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer68
Well Resistance you certainly adopted an appropriate name for yourself. You have resisted every attempt by everyone who has bothered to try to enlighten you. The way you write tells me you aren't totally stupid and enough information has been presented that you can't possibly be ignorant either; therefore, you are being obstinate because it pleases you in some warped, illogical fashion that can't stand up to even a cursory glance by someone else. Why are you doing this? What motivates you to remain obdurate and, and pig-headed?


I agree Astronomer68, there is just no talking to some people. They always see it their way and if "ANYTHING" conflicts with their small-minded, flat earth, ufo in league with the government, Roswell believing, X-files watching, Freemason watching, view of the world -- it's wrong.

I think the whole idea of his arguments are to get our goats. If he truly believes these things, he's on the wrong post and on the wrong planet....


[edit on 10-14-2005 by wetwarez]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
I read in Discover magazine today that the ESA might attempt to plan a moon mission. I have no idea why. I still have no idea why the US would think of attempting this.

Robotic exploration of our solar system best suites our capablities. For a small fraction of the cost we could send robots to the moon for years to do what men could accomplish over several missions lasting only weeks....and then with the money left over send out more robots.

I think it is just a coolness factor which drives most people into supporting manned exploration of space...if you can call it that. Probes, satellites and robots can go places man cannot.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Did ya read me post frosty? I guess not or you probably disagree
Robotic exploration is good for Pure science missions but when it comes to learning how to live 'out there' Robotics is a poor substitue to a living breathing human. At the risk of sounding like a broken record I'll repeat "Any innovations that let us live up there easier will make it easier to live here on the ground
"

[edit on 14-10-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Dear Wet and Astronomer --

FYI, I believe every word I say. I'm not saying I can't be wrong. I can be and have been before (i.e. about the Air Force flying saucers.) But I'm a reader and a thinker, and I've been around the block. I'm not young either. They say wisdom comes with age. I know when I was in my 20s I thought more along the lines of the opinions I hear on these threads. When I became a Christian, that's when I was able to make sense out of things.

Everybody needs a plumbline. The wise person will seek out the wisdom of those even wiser. I'll put my KJB up against NASA any day of the week.

I am open to reason and facts. But I won't be bullied or jeered into agreeing with anybody's opinion.



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Did ya read me post frosty? I guess not or you probably disagree
Robotic exploration is good for Pure science missions but when it comes to learning how to live 'out there' Robotics is a poor substitue to a living breathing human. At the risk of sounding like a broken record I'll repeat "Any innovations that let us live up there easier will make it easier to live here on the ground
"

[edit on 14-10-2005 by sardion2000]


Like what? I don't understand, could you name any?



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
Solar cells, Fuel Cells, High efficiency LED growlamps, water recycling technologies, air scrubing technologies.. shall I continue?

Learning to live in extreme environments is a good thing
The Antarctic is just not good enough IMO.

[edit on 15-10-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 01:41 AM
link   
Frosty -- I don't even think the robots are a good idea, not in the hands of NASA. Why? Because NASA is hugely incompetent, dishonest, and their biased position of being determined to prove that aliens exist makes them unfit for the job. It almost guarantees false results will be foisted on the public in the name of "science."

I am also against the Hubble for the same exact reason.


jra

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Frosty -- I don't even think the robots are a good idea, not in the hands of NASA. Why? Because NASA is hugely incompetent, dishonest, and their biased position of being determined to prove that aliens exist makes them unfit for the job. It almost guarantees false results will be foisted on the public in the name of "science."


Show me where NASA has been hugely incompetent and dishonest (saying the moon landings were fake doesn't count, since you can't even prove that)

Since when has NASA been in a biased position about proving life outside our planet exsist? They have looked for signs of life on Mars. But they arn't biased when it comes to that subject. They haven't claimed to find any life outside this planet yet. There findings are very inconclusive. If they were so determined to find alien life. I'm sure they would have claimed to have done so already. But they haven't.


I am also against the Hubble for the same exact reason.


Except your reasons for being against it are so unfounded and misinformed. Which have been explained to you countless times.

[edit on 15-10-2005 by jra]



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 04:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by jra

Show me where NASA has been hugely incompetent and dishonest (saying the moon landings were fake doesn't count, since you can't even prove that)

Since when has NASA been in a biased position about proving life outside our planet exsist? They have looked for signs of life on Mars. But they arn't biased when it comes to that subject. They haven't claimed to find any life outside this planet yet. There findings are very inconclusive. If they were so determined to find alien life. I'm sure they would have claimed to have done so already. But they haven't.



Come on, JRA. Remember Challenger? Remember Columbia? NASA testified in Congress and all kinds of stuff came out about how incompetent they are.

Take a look at this pic at the bottom of the page on this link. THEN come back and tell me how swift and capable they are.
www.geocities.com...

For God's sake, they are LOOKING FOR WATER ON THE MOON. They claim there's water there, and that they are going to use it to set up a moon village. Ha! The only ones who think there's water on the moon are NASA and the space junkies who think there's life "out there" and will believe anything NASA tells them. No serious scientist who knows anything about the moon would claim such nonsense. Do a Google search for moon, water, and see what you find. There is no atmosphere to trap any water there, and it is very, very hot. Any moisture there might be would vaporize and dissipate into space because there's not enough gravity to hold it to the moon.

NASA has radio satellite dishes pointed out to space so they can make contact with the intelligent life they think is out there. So far nobody's dialed in.

Right now they're preparing another fake landing hoax. This time on Mars. They should be better at their hoaxing techniques this time than they were with Apollo. After all, they've had almost 40 years to perfect their legerdemain craft of smoke and mirrors, they and their distinguished gallery of astroNOTs on the web pictured so heroically holding their plastic model spaceships.



[edit on 15-10-2005 by resistance]


jra

posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistance
Come on, JRA. Remember Challenger? Remember Columbia? NASA testified in Congress and all kinds of stuff came out about how incompetent they are.


Yes NASA has made some mistakes and had some serious and costly accidents. No one is perfect.


Take a look at this pic at the bottom of the page on this link. THEN come back and tell me how swift and capable they are.
www.geocities.com...


Are you talking about the two sunstruck photos? The fact that the guy claims to have found them on NASA's page should tell you something. That there is nothing wrong with them, besides the fact that they are sunstruck. I've also seen dozens of sunstruck photos, not only from the Apollo missions, but from every day photos that the average person takes. It doesn't happen often, but it can. It usually happened to the last few shots in the magazine. Some light would leak in and expose onto the film if it wasn't wound all the way in properly. There are lots of photos with sunstrikes, lensflares, over exposures etc.

If the guy who made this site couldn't even figure out what a sunstruck photo was. It has got to make you wonder how misinformed the rest of this webpage is.


For God's sake, they are LOOKING FOR WATER ON THE MOON. They claim there's water there, and that they are going to use it to set up a moon village. Ha! The only ones who think there's water on the moon are NASA and the space junkies who think there's life "out there" and will believe anything NASA tells them. No serious scientist who knows anything about the moon would claim such nonsense. Do a Google search for moon, water, and see what you find. There is no atmosphere to trap any water there, and it is very, very hot. Any moisture there might be would vaporize and dissipate into space because there's not enough gravity to hold it to the moon.


Umm... you know they mean frozen water and not liquid water right? And yes they are looking, but I do not believe they have claimed to find any yet. But they think there might be some up there in the north and south polar regions. In craters where the sunlight never shines into (where it's very cold). What's so unbelievable about that? But NASA hasn't claimed anything, they just think there could be some there and they're going to take a look.


NASA has radio satellite dishes pointed out to space so they can make contact with the intelligent life they think is out there. So far nobody's dialed in.


NASA has radio telescopes yes but it is SETI that borrows time on them to search for possible signals from other intelligent life forms. SETI is not apart of NASA. Lots of science organizations, groups, and even education institutions borrow time on the equipment. Even Hubble gets used by many differnt groups. You seem to be under the impression that it's NASA itself that does all these things.


Right now they're preparing another fake landing hoax. This time on Mars. They should be better at their hoaxing techniques this time than they were with Apollo. After all, they've had almost 40 years to perfect their legerdemain craft of smoke and mirrors, they and their distinguished gallery of astroNOTs on the web pictured so heroically holding their plastic model spaceships.





posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 05:22 AM
link   
I'm sure when China lands on the moon Resistance will be claiming they faked it too in collusion with NASA



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Guys lets stay a bit on topic shall we. If people want to go on about the "faked" moon landing there are tons of other thread that you can go to town on.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 06:01 AM
link   
If a landing on the Moon can answer the question of whether a Moon based solar power regime is possible and then go about implementing said regime, I'm all for that.


$108 billion would be cheap and an investment of 1-2 trillion dollars in a Moon based solar solution would be well worth it, if they could produce a amount of energy equal to what we now produce w/ coal, oil, gas, gasoline and alternative energy.






[edit on 10/15/2005 by bodebliss]



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
If a landing on the Moon can answer the question of whether a Moon based solar power regime is possible and then go about implementing said regime, I'm all for that.


$108 billion would be cheap and an investment of 1-2 trillion dollars in a Moon based solar solution would be well worth it, if they could produce a amount of energy equal to what we now produce w/ coal, oil, gas, gasoline and alternative energy.


A solar power farm on the Moon doesn't make sense as a way to get power to Earth. Using resources from the Moon to build a solar power farm orbiting the Earth; however, makes very good sense. A solar power station (in orbit) would not have to equal the current power production capacity of Earth based systems to make it worthwhile. It only has to have a reasonable economic break even time.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
Solar cells, Fuel Cells, High efficiency LED growlamps, water recycling technologies, air scrubing technologies.. shall I continue?

Learning to live in extreme environments is a good thing
The Antarctic is just not good enough IMO.

[edit on 15-10-2005 by sardion2000]


Why did solar cells come from manned exploration? What fuel cells? Never heard that NASA had anything to do with LED's...
Water recycling has been around for years before NASA just like solar cells

I would need more than just your word, maybe some links...



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
Frosty -- Don't worry about any moon landings. The next big scheme by NASA is a fake manned mission to Mars. Wired.com says:

"John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington-based policy group that bills itself as nonpartisan, pointed to two reasons for continuing the station: furthering the U.S. commitment to its space-station partners, and maintaining a manned presence in space as the moon and Mars program gears up.

Pike said he was skeptical of the administration's motives in articulating the moon-Mars plan. He noted that a new moon landing would not take place until at least 11 years after the end of a possible second Bush term.

He went so far as to indicate that the plan is a Trojan Horse for killing the shuttle and station -- and that the moon-Mars initiative will never materialize beyond "paying contractors for artwork."


nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...
sci.esa.int...

And the NASA Disney collaboration of a big budget film ($120 million budgeted) on Mars
(Mission to Mars: Let there be Life) being made:
www.enterprisemission.com...

It's probable this film alone may get people in the right frame of mind for the faked landing on earth of supposed Martian aliens (hybrid creatures hidden by the military to be brought forth at the right moment.)




[edit on 15-10-2005 by resistance]



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
If a landing on the Moon can answer the question of whether a Moon based solar power regime is possible and then go about implementing said regime, I'm all for that.


$108 billion would be cheap and an investment of 1-2 trillion dollars in a Moon based solar solution would be well worth it, if they could produce a amount of energy equal to what we now produce w/ coal, oil, gas, gasoline and alternative energy.






[edit on 10/15/2005 by bodebliss]


That energy isn't going to do much but just sit up there on the moon. How are people on earth going to go about using this energy? It will be way too cost ineffective for anyone to do this.



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
This is the senario I've heard and like. They let go robots which turn the lunar soil into solar cells and connect them to the grid. With 1% of the Moon covered with these low quality solar cells their output equals the total energy output of the planet Earth. They sendthe energy to Earth by laser and microwave relay stions and microwave it to energy producing facilities on the Earth.

No pollution, birds could even fly thru the microwaves w/o harm. This is because where the microwaves are headed is permeable to microwaves , but insolated to not allow the heat buildup to escape producing steam and energy here.








[edit on 10/15/2005 by bodebliss]





top topics
 
0
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join