2018 Moon Launch? 104 Billion. Wow!!

page: 12
0
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

Frosty
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.

Have you ever heard of Columbus? Or Lewis & Clark?

The obvious point i'm making is that we like to explore the unknowns for ourselves. Sure robots can do it as well, and for a cheaper price, but there not as reliable and resourcefull as us, what takes a Mars rover 2 weeks, humans could do in under a day.


No, the obvious point is that apples are not oranges. Colombus was sent out by a king and queen to discover gold. Lewis and Clark were sent out by a president to map the northwest. And the places these men set out was not unknown.

Your comparison of these two to space exploration is very childlike. And you have no idea what manned exploration is do you? What fronteirs have they explored that robots haven't too first?




posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 07:53 AM
link   
There is also the fact that we are on a tiny island call planet earth and we could get blindsided by any number of celestial calamities. Pushing the boundries of where and how we live will lower the chances that we will get blindsided. Extinction sucks ya know


You will not hear from me on this issue again as it's obviously a waste of time trying to convince you. At least you're at least willing to listen to arguments another one I had an argument with on this subject(named Realist) would barely even do that. Been fun! I hope you see the light someday.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty


No, the obvious point is that apples are not oranges. Colombus was sent out by a king and queen to discover gold. Lewis and Clark were sent out by a president to map the northwest. And the places these men set out was not unknown.

Your comparison of these two to space exploration is very childlike. And you have no idea what manned exploration is do you? What fronteirs have they explored that robots haven't too first?


Very well put. Columbus was sent by the Queen to find gold, Lewis and Clark sent by the resident to map the northwest, and NASA sent by the Illuminati to find moon rocks, frozen ice, and Grays and to learn how spiders spin webs in space on a shuttle.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
There is also the fact that we are on a tiny island call planet earth and we could get blindsided by any number of celestial calamities. Pushing the boundries of where and how we live will lower the chances that we will get blindsided. Extinction sucks ya know


You will not hear from me on this issue again as it's obviously a waste of time trying to convince you. At least you're at least willing to listen to arguments another one I had an argument with on this subject(named Realist) would barely even do that. Been fun! I hope you see the light someday.


LOL! So? You think running away from the resourceful mother earth is going to save mankind? What compells such logic? How can you think of only one solution? I have already thought of one more than you have. And what proof do you possibly have to say the earth will be blindsighted by a celestial body? Maybe I should run through the streets shouting 2012 for no apparent reason such as you are shouting doomsday for no apparent reason.


There is nothing in space that can support mankind at the moment. As we know, oil is an organic substance created from decomposed biological matter. Running out into space with a mandate to save mankind is your arguement for manned space exploration?

At first it was about the science, but now I can clearly see this is a political and personal goal whether it be to upstage the communist or release fears of doomsday.



posted on Oct, 19 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Frosty
There is nothing in space that can support mankind at the moment.

Thats the point!
thats the thing we need to change.

Its inevitable that the earth will get hit by a big comet or asteroid...and if you like the "better safe then sorry" phrase, then you would like to have a back-up plan...like space stations and moon colonies and Mars as well.

I dont know where you got politics from? it has nothing to do with that.

It just comes down to wanting to expand our reach, and science is apart of that, whether it be the main goal, or a bi-product.



posted on Oct, 20 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty

At first it was about the science, but now I can clearly see this is a political and personal goal whether it be to upstage the communist or release fears of doomsday.


Of course it is. It's about the thrill of seeing humanity 'out there' and all that brings with it. If we didn't have a gun crazy, murderous govt., spending us into the largest deficit in history (conservative my bone) I might agree to go along with the waste associated with sending men to Mars, etc.

BTW, Frosty, I think Jimmy's arms are getting tired.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 04:45 AM
link   
"Thats the point!
thats the thing we need to change"

Your never going to change the fact that to live outside of Earth, we will have to live underground.

Look for the advent of mole tech.

[edit on 10/21/2005 by bodebliss]



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 06:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
"Thats the point!
thats the thing we need to change"

Your never going to change the fact that to live outside of Earth, we will have to live underground.

Look for the advent of mole tech.

[edit on 10/21/2005 by bodebliss]


We already have mole tech. It's in Washington, DC, and try Nevada, and lots of other places where our government "lives" underground.



posted on Oct, 21 2005 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
Your never going to change the fact that to live outside of Earth, we will have to live underground.

- I'm not sure I get where your going with that.


Are you refering to radiation? Or something else?



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Radiation.

Definately, radiation. Oh , and lack of atmosphere and the foots ability to touch the ground. and grow crops and have cities, especially when meteors are raining down..



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
Radiation.

Definately, radiation. Oh , and lack of atmosphere and the foots ability to touch the ground. and grow crops and have cities, especially when meteors are raining down..


Theres various methods to deal with radiation... Like lead or have you craft have water around it, or have an magnetic field.

the foots ability to touch the ground??? whats that mean?

Cities is a long way off...BUt crops isn't, obviously not on the surface, but greenhouses could be easily set up, to provide oxygen, food, etc.
and the odds of a big one hitting you i'm sure is very rare, the moon looks beaten and battered to hell, but thats only because it is really old and cant hide its scars. and buildings on the surface could be made to survive hits by tiny rocks moving at mach 50.



posted on Oct, 22 2005 @ 11:20 AM
link   
lol if China gets up there and can't find any evidence of us being there, that would just make me laugh; despise the govn't even more lol.
peace
jeff



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeuathemovies
lol if China gets up there and can't find any evidence of us being there, that would just make me laugh; despise the govn't even more lol.
peace
jeff


Then couldn't you say that China faked it's moon landing, just to make the US look bad? Why continue with the fallacy that the moon landing never took place?

Do you honestly believe that it didn't? Do you also believe it's made of cheese? Little moon men and a green princess named Vara wants human men for mating?

Come on... why not accept the reality that we did land on the moon? Is it so hard to accept? I find that easier to swallow than the "alien abductions and autopsies".



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
i really don't think that we made it to the moon. i think we just had to be the hardcore us nation that we are and beat russia in the space race. how would it look if the us lost to a communist nation? they had been working for a lot longer on getting to the moon and spent a lot more money and then we came along and spend less money and accomplish their task in a short amount of time. i don't think we just had better people work on it. it was all a hoax.

p.s. deny hate


jra

posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by seeuathemovies
i really don't think that we made it to the moon. i think we just had to be the hardcore us nation that we are and beat russia in the space race. how would it look if the us lost to a communist nation? they had been working for a lot longer on getting to the moon and spent a lot more money and then we came along and spend less money and accomplish their task in a short amount of time. i don't think we just had better people work on it. it was all a hoax.

p.s. deny hate


So with all that said. With the USSR keeping a close eye on the US going to the moon. They would have been the first to come out and say it was all fake since they would have noticed the lack of radio communications coming from the moon (if it were faked), but they didn't. I'm pretty sure the USSR would have said something if they suspected it was fake.

This also brings up the question as to why the USSR didn't fake a moon landing. They had some very ambitious plans for the moon, but were cut back and eventually cancelled (because the USSR collapsed). But no they didn't attempt to fake a mon landing, they didn't suspect the US of doing so either, so what does that tell you? That perhaps it was real.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 05:34 AM
link   
Well, having made this post and leaving it for a bit to cure, it appears the topic of conversation has gone all over the board. Ive gotten some good laughs as well as insight..

The first thing that has been addressed to death in other threads is us putting a man on moon.
Were not talking about one event, were talking about several. Apollo 11 on.

www.nasm.si.edu...

If you look at the process, we proceeded in increments. We just didnt send a man straight to the moon. We worked our way up to the moon before actually setting foot on it. I truly find it highly , as in 100% probable that we indeed landed a man on the moon. Too many years. Too much engineering, and by now, something would have leaked out.

As far as the moon is concerned, I am personally for going to mars. After having thought about the moon, I think that would be a great nearby test bed for building structures like ones being built and operated in other locations. Planets and planetary bodies that are not protected by the asteroid belt will provide new challenges. Impact with large projectiles as well as mini projectiles the size of dust moving at god knows what speed are a reality. Somthing we forget our atmosphere takes care of.

An old National Geographic I saw showed a 12 inch thick brick of acrylic or some type of a clear plastic that that had micro sized holes in it from high speed space dust. It had been on Skylab on mounted to show the effects of extended durations in space.

Space is a harsh place. Ultra cold, and ultra hot. Man would be 100% reliant on sustaining systems. Im sure that many systems used on submarines can be looked at in terms of sustaining life away from earth interms of air and maintaining its balance..

Lastly, and back to Topic, has any company, public or private actually started working on this program yet? We will know its for real when contracts start getting granted and people start working on it..or would we...hmmm. makes you think.

The post about China faking their landing got a good laugh from me. Boy, wouldnt that be a conspiracy? Even better, Russia releases data indicating there was no communication from space going on during the apollo program
This forum could build the first trispiracy...oh go.. the though.

Peace



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Just coming back here to encourage you guys to check out the new thread that's up on the new backyard telescopes and how clearly they show the moon. www.abovetopsecret.com...



Originally posted by wetwarez

originally posted by resistance
Murcielago -- Your logic isn't making it. The galaxies may be huge, but they are far, far away. The moon is the closest thing to us in space, a piddly 250,000 miles away, and even to the naked eye looks pretty big. We can look at it through binoculars and see craters and stuff. So my point is, if this contraption they've got up in space known as the Hubble telescope can't even get a good pic of the moon, why should I believe them when they produce these things that look like ink blots and claim these are "new stars forming, or "old stars dying" or whatever other nonsense they claim.


resistance, have you ever known anyone with glasses? Hubble was designed to look at "DEEP" space objects, not close objects and as you said, the moon is a "piddly 250k away". Hubble was never designed to look at earth or the moon. In fact NASA has even explained why here and here .




Dear Wet: I clicked on your "here" and it said this:

"No, Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites.

"An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot. "

I am getting really frustrated with people who seem to be deaf, dumb and blind. Do any of you even stop to consider for one split second that you might be wrong about the Hubble? As the explanation above says, the one YOU SENT ME TO, (and these were the only words printed on the page BTW,) the Hubble does not have ENOUGH RESOLUTION TO SEE THE MOON VERY CLEARLY. Do you read me, Scotty?

NOT ENOUGH RESOLUTION.

Anybody reading this needs to take a deep breath and consider one simple fact:

NOT ENOUGH RESOLUTION [size=12] does not equal

TOO MUCH RESOLUTION.

Do you read me Scotty?

Read the thread that's up now about the new backyard telescopes that produce clear, crisp and close images of the moon. I said you could see the moon better from your backyard telescope than you could with the Hubble. I was right. And not because the Hubble has TOO MUCH RESOLUTION.

The Hubble is an oversized, overpriced piece of junk that can't focus and has weak resolution. Why do we keep it up there and continue to worship it like some kind of a God? Because we want to believe that somehow it's able to see way, way, way far into space and we like all those pretty pictures NASA tells us are from gazillions of light years away.

Truth is not determined by polls. Truth is truth. Whether one person believes and says it, no people believe or say it, or everyone believes and says it.

Maybe someday I'll have enough points to buy myself a signature line. I think my signature line will be, "Truth is not determined by polls."

If I hear one more time that "You've been told over and over again...blah, blah."

Yeah, I sure have been told over and over again. I've been told over and over again something that's[size=10] WRONG.






[

[edit on 8-11-2005 by resistance]



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 08:01 AM
link   
resistance, calm the (something) down. The Hubble was never meant to take pictures of the moon. It's greatest achievement has a been the Hubble Deep Field Images (google this).

Your thinking that a telescopse such as the Hubble not being able to look at the moon with such magnification is odd. It is a telescope, not a microscope, it is meant to look out into space not magnify Apollo debris for paranoid web surfers, again google Hubble Deep Field Images.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
resistance, calm the (something) down. The Hubble was never meant to take pictures of the moon. It's greatest achievement has a been the Hubble Deep Field Images (google this).

Your thinking that a telescopse such as the Hubble not being able to look at the moon with such magnification is odd. It is a telescope, not a microscope, it is meant to look out into space not magnify Apollo debris for paranoid web surfers, again google Hubble Deep Field Images.


Frosty -- A telescope without resolution and magnification power (which Hubble is lacking in both) is not much of a telescope. What it really is, is a hunk-a-junk computer, that when you input data into it it will tell you what you would see if you could see what you CAN'T see. The fact that it's floating around a couple hundred miles above earth makes it seem special, but the fact that it's floating in space doesn't make it a great invention. The VLT in Chili is a much better telescope, as are the backyard telescopes. And you're wrong when you say that you can't judge the Hubble by how good its pictures are of the moon.

And if you want to believe these NASA people telling you what you would see if you could see that you CAN'T see -- well, you are a far more trusting soul than I am.



posted on Nov, 8 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Idont know much about the Hubble except for some of the great images that it has taken of celestial bodies. But having owned a backyeard reflector scope, 8'" in diameter, it would make sense that the hubble isnt set up for a short range shot like that.

Can someone who has knowledge of the Hubble shed some light...no pun intended, on Hubbles mirror and its focal length and resolution capabilities?

Peace





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 9  10  11    13 >>

log in

join