Happy Face

Don't think he's listenened to the Melvyn Bragg show on Skeptism i linked to yet. You're a great philosopher Wolfy. Like my 5 year old who asks a question and then asks "why?" after any and every answer I can possibly give, no matter how detailed.

Much like you can engage in science by microwaving your bachelors super noodles, you could build a rocket that will reach space in your garage.... http://izismile.com/2011/10/12/homemade_rocket_that_traveled_to_outer_space_47_pics.html

I'm not sure I understand how Sky transmit a signal from St James park to Australia in an instant. I thought they had satellite/production trucks at the ground, I've not seen a transmittor built on Barrack Road. Can you explain?

You're confusing science with religion. Science questions everything until a proof is in place. Theories are constantly scrutinized for evidence/proof either way and anyone is invited to submit reasoning to support or disprove a theory. You'd only be ridiculed if you weren't equipped with the reasoning skills or knowledge of the technicalities to back up your thesis better than the other experts Only last week I heard about some tramp in London (I think) who had solved some age old problem economists had struggled with for decades. Wish I could remember where i heard about him, or his name, it was very interesting.

Do you believe you get sky telly from a satellite?

They had Tarkovsky.

You understand that the rocket doesn't just appear in space and then begin propulsion towards the moon right? I mean, you get that it is propelled out of the atmosphere of earth and is already moving as it enters the vacuum of space?

Flagging

How is that a straw man? Both countries invested billions in being the first to land on the moon and spent almost a decade on doing it. As soon as Russia had a notion that the US were ready to fake it, what reason did they have to allow them to do that? Or are you saying the entire international political discourse over 4 decades after WW2 was fake too?

We went there 6 times. The cost to knowledge enahncement ratio offers dwindling returns ultimately. The notions of a colony or a staging post to further destinations haven't panned out as being particularly plausible. We look beyond the moon now. What reason would you give for a 7th manned visit? EDIT: Even if NASA saw the value in it, ultimately that's a political decision rather than a scientific one anyway.

Commit to putting down $100m yourself and he might reply.

If it was such an important race, and both countries knew it was a hiding to nothing, why didn't the Russians just fake it sooner than the US did? They had 8 years.

I don't want to google toilet cam at work

@ the synchronised periods among posters in this thread. Mint. As I said earlier. Apollo 13 is the ONLY non-fiction space movie to make any significant money. Even that was a relatively small budget film for 1995 ($50m compared to $60m on Under Seige 2, $100m on Batman and $175m Waterworld). Interested to hear why that can be dismissed so easily as a reason that apollo movies don't receive more investment Chez? Wouldn't dismiss the dramatic reasons so easily either tbh, though I don't think they are primary. It all went wrong on the Apollo 13 mission and NASA defied the odds to bring home the endangered astronauts, loads of drama top play with there. While Apollo 11 was arguably our greatest achievement, it went swimmingly. If you add drama to it that wasn't there you'll get hammered, but if you stick to the facts, it's pretty dry, much more effective as documentary than drama. The reality is greater than any fictionalised version could be. There have been a couple of Apollo 11 movies though, TV versions only, sub-par as you'd expect... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115560/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1251357/

Much more of a documentary subject......of which there are dozens.

The budget would be too big to take the risk I think. The Hollywood view is that the public don't like films about space. That's why John Carter of Mars was renamed John Carter. The Right Stuff is almost perfect, but it cost $27m to make and only made $21m back.

eh?

Just comparing who has spent what so far this summer...... 54 Chelsea 24 Arsenal 21 Man U 11 Spurs 9 Liverpool 6 Southampton 5 Reading 5 West Ham 4 Swansea 3 Villa 3 Norwich 0 Everton 0 Fulham 0 Man City 0 Stoke 0 West Brom -0.4 QPR -3.6 Newcastle -6 Sunderland http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/article-2145179/Premier-League-transfers--summer-2012.html Happy to make any corrections from undisclosed fees I've not taken the time to look at more closely.

It's a blessed routine for the Good the Ba and the .....erm......Cheik

Whoa-oa-oa! CURTIIIIIIS GOOD I knew that you would, now CURTIIIIIS GOOD I knew that you would, now So good, so good, I got you

Balls flying high you know how I feel Cross in the sky you know how I feel Breeze past his man you know how I feel The balls gone It was great play It's no more strife For me Cos he's CURTIS GOOD!

Annoying you can't get a 3d replay of the opening ceremony. That was mint. Like the tickertape was falling in our own living room.

The Right Stuff is a brilliant film about the program that ultimately led to it. Recommend you watch it.