2018 Moon Launch? 104 Billion. Wow!!

Originally posted by jra
There are lots of things that came out of the Space program. All you have to do is look for it. It's not hard.

Here are the links for easy reference

Yahoo Search of "nasa spinoff"(without quotes)

www.sti.nasa.gov...

www.thespaceplace.com...

vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov...

EDIT: I give up just search nasa spinoff and you'll get



[edit on 5-10-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 5-10-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 5-10-2005 by sardion2000]

WoW!

That's spinoff city!

I hope Resistance doesn't take a look at that.

It'll ruin some assumptions.

Thanks , I'll bookmark that.

Originally posted by sardion2000

Originally posted by jra
There are lots of things that came out of the Space program. All you have to do is look for it. It's not hard.

Here are the links for easy reference

Yahoo Search of "nasa spinoff"(without quotes)

www.sti.nasa.gov...

www.thespaceplace.com...

vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov...

EDIT: I give up just search nasa spinoff and you'll get



[edit on 5-10-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 5-10-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 5-10-2005 by sardion2000]

Okay -- I'll give you this one. There were some spinoffs. I don't see where any of them are any great big deal though. But I'll still give this one to you. Necessity is as they say the mother of invention. I question how useful most of this stuff actually is to anybody though. Technology seems to be moving ahead just fine without NASA's help. And it's not even NASA who's making any discoveries. It's the private companies NASA contracts with to provide solutions to their problems that are coming up with these things so NASA is able to get their big spacecraft off the ground and go roaring around in the atmosphere.

The actual flights themselves produce little or nothing of value that I can see. Hubbel is a complete waste, can't even photograph the moon.

Originally posted by resistance
And it's not even NASA who's making any discoveries. It's the private companies NASA contracts with to provide solutions to their problems that are coming up with these things so NASA is able to get their big spacecraft off the ground and go roaring around in the atmosphere.

Well... yeah, that's how it works. Things are always contracted out for other companies to produce. NASA basicly organizes it and puts it together. They do some things themselves too i'd imagine, but still. These things were made because NASA needed them. Funding other companies so they could develop the things they need.

That's how things work in the aerospace industry and in many other industries too i'd imagine.

Hubbel is a complete waste, can't even photograph the moon.

Because it's far sighted. It's designed to look and photograph things deep into space. The Moon is too close, as are most things in our solar system. For the HST, it's like trying to read a book pressed up to your face. It's hard to focus.

[edit on 6-10-2005 by jra]

I like my idea for launching the shuttle. Magnets! A giant magnetic pole! In science class you would have a magnetic rod and a round magnet that would go around it, you push it down to the bottom, let go, the magent launches up into the air. Now do this on a grand scale with rockets we could launch a larger load or go farther/faster. Imagine they take the first 500-600 feet off by launching with magnetics to gain more speed so it takes less fuel so smaller rockets and so forth.'

Anyways would love to see a moon landing live, the first moon landing is the record for most seen thing live and ever. 600million+ live, and more then 2 billion since then.

air resistance would fry a magneto device traveler in the Earth's dense atmos-fear also the G-farce of acceleration would prob kill.

This type of propulsion would be good for material eject to Earth orbit from da Moon.

Hubbel is a complete waste, can't even photograph the moon.

Because it's far sighted. It's designed to look and photograph things deep into space. The Moon is too close, as are most things in our solar system. For the HST, it's like trying to read a book pressed up to your face. It's hard to focus.

[edit on 6-10-2005 by jra]

Actually that's not true. Read this put out by NASA itself. The problem is lack of magnification, not too much. Read for yourself.

science.nasa.gov...

Resistance,

Message from NASA...your hoax debunker were hoaxers

Read it and weep:

science.nasa.gov...

You got fooled, Resistance.

They got you , Man!

www.badastronomy.com...

www.redzero.demon.co.uk...







[edit on 10/8/2005 by bodebliss]

I like the direction the new NASA administrator wants to take the agency. The development of a true heavy lift vehicle capable of lofting 100-120 tons into low earth orbit would be a godsend for the space program. They could transport fuel into orbit and thus drastically cut the cost of many of the solar system missions while decreasing the transit times significantly. A truely large space habitat section could even contain a centrifuge to help keep the astronauts healthy for long trips. Plus the capabilities to protect personnel from solar radiation would finally get built. Not to mention that a telescope over twice the aperture of the HST could be sent into orbit and perhaps even the ability to create solar power stations could be started.

Resistance, there isn't any problem with focusing the HST on the Moon. The inability to locate & see the past landing sites doesn't have anything to do with the magnification of the HST either. The HST can magnify something as bright as the moon about 10,000 times. The problem is lack of resolution due to the HST's small aperture. If we had two linked HST's separated by about three kilometers, the landing sites would be visible and resovable by using optical interferometry.

[edit on 8-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

" even the ability to create solar power stations could be started"

I think that's what is behind the new race for space. The big energy we could get from solar power stations in orbit and on the Moon.

At the possibility of eventually producing 100X what the world currently uses. It is hard to overlook the draw that creates.

Originally posted by resistance
Technology seems to be moving ahead just fine without NASA's help. And it's not even NASA who's making any discoveries. It's the private companies NASA contracts with to provide solutions to their problems that are coming up with these things so NASA is able to get their big spacecraft off the ground and go roaring around in the atmosphere.

The actual flights themselves produce little or nothing of value that I can see. Hubbel is a complete waste, can't even photograph the moon.

You don't know to much about NASA and what they have done. GO back.... 50 years. X planes. Ever heard of X-15 a nasa plane that climbed to 400,000 feet probing the super uper atmosphere on the frnges of space. Mach 6.7.
That was the height of hte x-planes Hell the x-plane project is still in effect. NASA doenst deal only with space exploration. Lok at tehir website...

www.nasa.gov...

Hey lets pull apart NASA.... National Areonautics and Space Adminstration... Wait what? Areonautics?

IF IT WASNT FOR NASA WE WOULDNT HAVE THE CONCORD. WE WOULDNT HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY TO MEET AND BEAT HIGH MACH SPEEDS.

NASA has propelled technology furthere than you can imangine. BUT WAIT! THERES MORE!

Whats behind door number 3?

Why not? Why not send guys to space? YOu can do it eaisly. YOu know what the russians do? they strap a guy to a controled ICBM and you know what we have loads of ICBMs so why not? its not hat hard with current technoogy. Also this brings up another point. NASA basically invented the ICBM. So that wonderful thing we have called MAD. and being able to fly bombers world wide in less than 24 hours thank NASA. We wouldn have GPS we would have weather forcasting we wouldnt have solar data. And if you want to go into the medical benifits we hae gotten from NASA I can rant on that for years.
NASA has made what the world is today and if you cant see it you havent donw your reassearch and its because your nieve and ignorant to the facts.

As for HST. Hubble is a telescope. And telescopes are NOT ABOUT MAGNIFICATION (what are you serious?) Why yes I am. Telescopes are about light gathering power. and I am too tired of ranting to eloberate but if you want me to I will oh I will....

Jesus Loves you!

Originally posted by bodebliss
Resistance,

Message from NASA...your hoax debunker were hoaxers

Read it and weep:

science.nasa.gov...

You got fooled, Resistance.

They got you , Man!

www.badastronomy.com...

www.redzero.demon.co.uk...

I don't know what you're getting at. If you're trying to say that the "moon rocks" prove we went to the moon, well they just don't. It's common knowledge that NASA went "rock collecting" on earth, namely gathering meteor fragments in advance of their moon hoax.




[edit on 8-10-2005 by resistance]

Originally posted by Astronomer68
I like the direction the new NASA administrator wants to take the agency. The development of a true heavy lift vehicle capable of lofting 100-120 tons into low earth orbit would be a godsend for the space program. They could transport fuel into orbit and thus drastically cut the cost of many of the solar system missions while decreasing the transit times significantly. A truely large space habitat section could even contain a centrifuge to help keep the astronauts healthy for long trips. Plus the capabilities to protect personnel from solar radiation would finally get built. Not to mention that a telescope over twice the aperture of the HST could be sent into orbit and perhaps even the ability to create solar power stations could be started.

Resistance, there isn't any problem with focusing the HST on the Moon. The inability to locate & see the past landing sites doesn't have anything to do with the magnification of the HST either. The HST can magnify something as bright as the moon about 10,000 times. The problem is lack of resolution due to the HST's small aperture. If we had two linked HST's separated by about three kilometers, the landing sites would be visible and resovable by using optical interferometry.

[edit on 8-10-2005 by Astronomer68]

If that's true, I wonder why they haven't done it already. Could you explain a bit more the basis for your claims about needing two Hubbels to get a clear pic of the moon?

Originally posted by resistance
It's common knowledge that NASA went "rock collecting" on earth

Common knowledge? Right, so scientists can't tell a rock that has been sitting on Earth for who knows how long and is weathered, from a rock that has never been in an atmosphere and is not weathered in any way like a rock on Earth would be? Rocks on Earth and ones on the Moon would be very differnt from one another. It would be very obvious if the rocks were all from Earth. Scientists from all around the world have looked at the rocks. Not all scientists work for NASA. There is no way every single scientist is going to be in on it, if it were indeed fake.

Any luck with those photos from differnt Apollo missions having the same background yet? Perhaps who ever told you about that, lied or just didn't know any better.

Well I decided to go and look for myself. Apparently this was mentioned on that 'wonderful' Fox program and they said...

"These two photos seem to have the same mountain backdrop, yet the lunar module is only visible in one of them. Seemingly impossible since the LEM never moved, and its based remained even after the mission. Some suggest the same artificial backdrop was used when shooting two entirely separate pictures."

So it seems the complaint wasn't about the same backdrop from differnt missions, but that two photos from the same mission had the same background. This is getting dummer by the minute.

Of course photos from the same mission would have the same background in some of the shots. Even when taken from very differnt spots. I live in a valley with hills and mountains around me. I could take a photo from one end of town of one montain, then go to another end of town and take a pic of the same mountain and little of the background would change, just the foreground would. Just like in the examples shown.

"I don't know what you're getting at. If you're trying to say that the "moon rocks" prove we went to the moon, well they just don't. It's common knowledge that NASA went "rock collecting" on earth, namely gathering meteor fragments in advance of their moon hoax. "

No Resistance,

In the other two links, they go down the list of the show's evidence and debunk the debunkers as morons who couldn't find their way out of a closet let alone debunk the space program


So are you keeping the fire bright at the entrance? You know this is the season when bears are looking for a place to hibernate.







[edit on 10/8/2005 by bodebliss]

Originally posted by bodebliss

No Resistance,

In the other two links, they go down the list of the show's evidence and debunk the debunkers as morons who couldn't find their way out of a closet let alone debunk the space program

You mean the Fox program? I never saw it. I heard it was nothing great. Fox is Illuminati too so I would expect them to put up something stupid to make it look like the advocates of the moon hoax have no case.

check this out:

www.geocities.com...





[edit on 8-10-2005 by resistance]

Originally posted by jra

Any luck with those photos from differnt Apollo missions having the same background yet? Perhaps who ever told you about that, lied or just didn't know any better.

Yeah. Try this link.

www.geocities.com...

Originally posted by resistance
Yeah. Try this link.

www.geocities.com...

I can see that the background changes slightly in a lot of those shots, depending on how far they moved, but yeah the backgrounds are simmilar, but like I said in my last post. I can take a pic from differnt areas here in my town and have a mountain in the background stay the same. Even with the two pics being taken many KM apart from eachother.

JRA -- Here's another interesting link. Some more lies. These people all work together.

usafflyingsaucers.com...

[edit on 8-10-2005 by resistance]