Trump advisers' space plan: To moon, Mars and beyond

a reply to: seasonal

I don't care about the dudes commentary, it is clearly stop motion.

It would be nice to be able to go to the moon, but we still can't get past around 400 miles outside of orbit without severe radiation issues. Van Allen Belts are a big stumbling block.

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: Kali74
Good luck without Science...

And education.

I think You are confusing indoctrination with education.

originally posted by: ExNihiloRed
a reply to: seasonal

Remind me again why we need to go back to the moon? Something we miss? I'd prefer resources be allocated to a more productive endeavor.

Do you realize just one large asteroid has more metal then all the worlds GDP? I can't think of anything more productive then getting mankind off this rock and expanding into space.

a reply to: Winstonian

Ok, but the video said that the helmet did not swivel, it does swivel in the other clip. Does this bring the rest of the video into question?

a reply to: seasonal

Maybe. That specific helmet does swivel. Pretend there is no commentary and judge the actual footage alone. It looks like A Nightmare Before Christmas.

Did you watch the first one? It is from a film called "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon."

an investigative reporter was trying to debunk the moon landings, and so he was filing all kinds of FOIA requests, and they sent him that footage. Check it out, it is super interesting.

originally posted by: Winstonian
a reply to: seasonal

I don't care about the dudes commentary, it is clearly stop motion.

It would be nice to be able to go to the moon, but we still can't get past around 400 miles outside of orbit without severe radiation issues. Van Allen Belts are a big stumbling block.

Not to drift off topic as there are plenty of moon landing hoax threads etc but please correct me if I am wrong as I'm no professional when it comes to studying film footage I'm just throwing my thoughts out there.. but does the video look like stop motion because the frames per second isn't much and the footage has been sped up. Look how quickly the earth is spinning. The sped up footage may give off the impression that's it like a stop motion film

Interesting vids though

A Friendly Reminder:

The topic of this thread is not about whether anyone landed on the Moon or not, or if we've been in space or not.

There are plenty of other threads for that discussion.

Please return to the topic of the OP.

Do not reply to this post.

a reply to: Winstonian

Oh I agree the film is choppy. I know nothing about film.

I saw the other vid along time ago but will be reviewing it.

I also think that if he says (and this isn't a slight at you) that the helmet swivel was odd on the guy outside (and it was) , and he added that the helmet did not swivel, but it did inside. It makes me think.

a reply to: Winstonian

It would be nice to be able to go to the moon, but we still can't get past around 400 miles outside of orbit without severe radiation issues. Van Allen Belts are a big stumbling block.

R I G H T .........

Those deadly Van Allen belts........

The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[30] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. Apollo flight trajectories bypassed the inner belts completely to send spacecraft through only the thinner areas of the outer belts.[24][31]

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: seasonal

This makes me very happy.

The space program needs more attention.

I agree with it as well, but 3 years out is not a realistic goal.

originally posted by: dragonridr
The country that creates a lunar base for space exploration will control the future. Think of this as a lunar airport people will come in dock refuel get repairs move on to there next destination. It also allows for space craft to be built in space meaning they can be larger id say eventually there will just be shuttles streaming back and forth between the Earth and the moon.

Such a thing will likely end up under international control, just like the ISS did. The problem is that such infrastructure so far away will wind up impossible to defend, and easy to destroy. It would be a major liability in war. The only way to make sure it wouldn't be a target, is to move it so that it's under the control of two warring nations as well as neutral nations. The presence of neutral bodies would prevent it from being a target.

Also, due to the nature of Lagrange points, there's a finite number of lunar elevators that could be made. With two Lagrange points, only two can exist. If you're not one of the two nations controlling a point and you want resources from the Moon, you'll have to take it by force. There will simply be too much pressure for it to be in anything other than international hands.

Yes, because we need to physically go to the moon again to expand our knowledge of space exploration.

9/10 odds we become a teleportation race or end up bending space etc. and from the get-go spaceships were useless.

I am so excited about the outlook of this administration's space policy. Trump has the right idea that America needs to be on top of our space game in order to continue being the greatest.

Setting base on the moon should have always been step one. We should be there already, we shouldn't skip over. It's easy and trump knows this, we can conquer the moon already. It's smart to push for further privatizing of space and to really push hard on developing a large scale space economy.

At this point it would be smarter to use NASA to usher in a larger scale space economy while allowing the private companies to do what they're gonna be better at. Competing to build the best rockets, materials satellites, and tech. Private companies can do all of that better than NASA can. NASA will be much stronger once trump has made his move with them.