Moon Landings

[Park Life 70]

What's that?

 

It will be used for stabalising wayward SATELLITES.

 

Then later bigger versions will be used for space travel. Very light propulsion system you see.

 

The main problem with rockets is the fuel is really fukin heavy.

[wolfy 12]

It will be used for stabalising wayward SATELLITES.

 

Then later bigger versions will be used for space travel. Very light propulsion system you see.

 

The main problem with rockets is the fuel is really fukin heavy.

Ok mate, I'm laughing but if you believe that then that's fair do's.

[Monkeys Fist 38911]

1. The ball would go where you threw it

2. The chair would move backwards a little bit.

Well done , have a cigar.

You understand Newton's 3rd law.

The ball is the rocket fuel

You are the rocket

The ice is the vacuum of space ( offers little to no resistance/friction).

 

Do you see?

Hmmm?

[Renton 17857]

It still apparently glided to Earth though, every time didn't it. Look at the design of it. There's no way in hell something like that could glide.

 

So now you're saying the millions of witnesses who saw the shuttles glide were duped? Were they holograms or what?

[Renton 17857]

Forget the equations, simple logic is all that's needed to know a rocket would not work in a vacuum.

 

Wrong. Mathematics is the language of science. If you're innumerate you can't speak the language, hence your difficulties of comprehension in this thread.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Whoever said it easy?

 

I think you have to accept that if they managed it in 69, then 42 years later it should be a piece of piss due to advances in technology.

[Park Life 70]

I think you have to accept that if they managed it in 69, then 42 years later it should be a piece of piss due to advances in technology.

 

It is, but the advanced tech isn't nasa's.

[Monkeys Fist 38911]

It might be easier now, but not easy by any stretch of the imagination.

 

 

[wolfy 12]

Well done , have a cigar.

You understand Newton's 3rd law.

The ball is the rocket fuel

You are the rocket

The ice is the vacuum of space ( offers little to no resistance/friction).

 

Do you see?

Hmmm?

The ice is the vacuum of space?

You have it all mixed up.

 

I understand Newtons law, on EARTH, in space it means absolutely nothing and the ice is certainly not the vacuum.

 

If you were sat on the same chair in the same ice rink with a bottle of compressed air and opened the valve, away from you, you would move in the opposite direction because the air is pushing against the atmosphere. The atmosphere is a barrier.

 

Try picking up a 4 by 4 sheet of ply board and running with it . The atmosphere or air pressure acts upon you.

If could stand on a floor in a vacuum and run with the same ply board you would simply run with no resistance.

 

Also a rocket does not shoot balls out of it nozzle, it simply burns fuel which would get swallowed up in the atmosphere and would be like you running on a treadmill, you would expend your energy but would go nowhere.

[wolfy 12]

So now you're saying the millions of witnesses who saw the shuttles glide were duped? Were they holograms or what?

What millions of witnesses seeing it glide?

 

The shuttle that lands is just a jet under power. Why don;t you bring up some footage and listen to it landing. If it was a glider , it would be quiet but if they need to disguise anything they have a jet that follows it in so no one knows it's under power.

 

N.A.S.A aren't stupid, they just know how to bullshit.

[wolfy 12]

Wrong. Mathematics is the language of science. If you're innumerate you can't speak the language, hence your difficulties of comprehension in this thread.

Mathematics is also the language of bullshit where space science is concerned, depending on what they require us to believe.

[Renton 17857]

 

 

I think you have to accept that if they managed it in 69, then 42 years later it should be a piece of piss due to advances in technology.

 

Why? Other than computer technology, what's really advanced? What's the motive for an expensive and dangerous return to the moon?

[wolfy 12]

I think you have to accept that if they managed it in 69, then 42 years later it should be a piece of piss due to advances in technology.

If they really did do it in 1969, there should be housing estates on the moon now lol

[wolfy 12]

Why? Other than computer technology, what's really advanced? What's the motive for an expensive and dangerous return to the moon?

What was the motive for them to supposedly do it 6 times?

[The Fish 9034]

Your 'because i'm bored' excuse is wearing a bit thin tbh.

Why?

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Why? Other than computer technology, what's really advanced? What's the motive for an expensive and dangerous return to the moon?

 

Come on Renton that's a crap argument on so many levels. If they can land a craft the size of a car gently on Mars, millions of miles away then lets just say the moon is very doable with 40 years of advancement.

 

As to the expense, NASA has spent garfillions putting numerous craft a year in space. Getting to space is the expensive bit, the little boost to go to the moon is nothing in comparison.

 

Im sure there are many reasons to go back whether that be plain old PR (politicians love that) or more real reasons do to with research etc. (Lets not forget that China is planning to go pretty soon. Dont think they are going just to take pictures).

[Renton 17857]

Mathematics is also the language of bullshit where space science is concerned, depending on what they require us to believe.

 

Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it bullshit. It just makes you a failure of the educational system. We're not talking quantum physics here, just simple equations any teenager should be able to grasp. You fundamentally just don't get Newtons equations which are universal and have absolutely nothing to do with the premise of 'pushing' against the atmosphere.

[wolfy 12]

Just because you can't understand it doesn't make it bullshit. It just makes you a failure of the educational system. We're not talking quantum physics here, just simple equations any teenager should be able to grasp. You fundamentally just don't get Newtons equations which are universal and have absolutely nothing to do with the premise of 'pushing' against the atmosphere.

But it does push against the atmosphere plus the gravity which people do not take into account and just go with the bullshit that you throw the ball against nothing as if it's in a vacuum.

 

When you jump up , gravity pulls you back down. If you throw a medicine ball for instance, you throw it against the atmosphere whilst gravity immediately is acting upon your throw and that's why you move a little bit in the opposite direction.

 

In a vacuum, you don't have anything acting upon you at all. It's nothing and you weigh nothing in space.

[wolfy 12]

Anything that scientists don;t want you to know about, they invent equations that are so complicated that people just accept it because they cannot fathom or even dare attempt to fathom out how these work, so they just go along with what they are told.

[Renton 17857]

 

 

Come on Renton that's a crap argument on so many levels. If they can land a craft the size of a car gently on Mars, millions of miles away then lets just say the moon is very doable with 40 years of advancement.

 

As to the expense, NASA has spent garfillions putting numerous craft a year in space. Getting to space is the expensive bit, the little boost to go to the moon is nothing in comparison.

 

Im sure there are many reasons to go back whether that be plain old PR (politicians love that) or more real reasons do to with research etc. (Lets not forget that China is planning to go pretty soon. Dont think they are going just to take pictures).

 

PR battle was won in 69, at MASSIVE risk and expense. There was little legacy and as is apparent on this thread little public appreciation after the event. I asked you why go back and what relevant technologies have advanced and you just ignored that other than some vague notions.

 

Maybe things will change now with the Chinese but I think there has to be a motive, and I don't do conspiracies. After Apollo we had the disastrous white elephant that was the shuttle which spunked NASA's money and support away. I'm really not surprised the focus has now gone back to unmanned missions, makes perfect sense to me.

 

Manned missions to Mars won't take place in the youngest poster's life time on here either because the technical difficulties are immense.

[Renton 17857]

Anything that scientists don;t want you to know about, they invent equations that are so complicated that people just accept it because they cannot fathom or even dare attempt to fathom out how these work, so they just go along with what they are told.

 

You're wrong, honestly. Understanding equations, particularly 300 year old ones, is not hard. It's a shame you can't appreciate the beauty of Newtonian physics.

[wolfy 12]

You're wrong, honestly. Understanding equations, particularly 300 year old ones, is not hard. It's a shame you can't appreciate the beauty of Newtonian physics.

It's not Newtonian physics I don;t appreciate, it's N.A.S.A bullshit I don't appreciate.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

 

PR battle was won in 69, at MASSIVE risk and expense. There was little legacy and as is apparent on this thread little public appreciation after the event. I asked you why go back and what relevant technologies have advanced and you just ignored that other than some vague notions.

 

Maybe things will change now with the Chinese but I think there has to be a motive, and I don't do conspiracies. After Apollo we had the disastrous white elephant that was the shuttle which spunked NASA's money and support away. I'm really not surprised the focus has now gone back to unmanned missions, makes perfect sense to me.

 

Manned missions to Mars won't take place in the youngest poster's life time on here either because the technical difficulties are immense.

 

Lol I didn't ignore "what technologies have advanced" but come on.

 

Look at a car from 69 to today, rockets (testing a plane tomorrow that flies at 6 x the speed of sound), computers, communications, materials, manufacturing processes.,... The list is really endless which is why it's a silly argument.

[Gemmill 34830]

 

whatchoolaughingat?

 

i know i know, don't feed the troll i had refrained from partaking in this discussion again but i couldn't resist

 

Just the way he was going "but did you scan the so and so?"......"yes"......."Ahhh but did you scan the thingamajig?"....."I did"......."and the whatsitsface?"....."FUCKING YES MAN!"

[Renton 17857]

 

 

Lol I didn't ignore "what technologies have advanced" but come on.

 

Look at a car from 69 to today, rockets (testing a plane tomorrow that flies at 6 x the speed of sound), computers, communications, materials, manufacturing processes.,... The list is really endless which is why it's a silly argument.

 

It's not though. How is a car fundamentally different today compared with the 70s? Has rocket propulsion moved on? And really, whats the motive? Any PR benefits would be wiped out by the risk. NASA chose to design a reusable craft which was a massive failure. Wasted opportunity more than anything else, no conspiracy.