13511

Better yet is the explanation that the flat earthers give for having the stars rotating one direction at the north pole and the opposite at the south pole. And everyone knows that all celestial objects circle the earth as it's the center of everything.

So you are saying it's a #2 newsletter? :poop:

Apollo Rocketed Through the Van Allen Belts

Garald (one of my old IT bosses) used to talk about the "modern" tech that they had, like the wax drums for recording audio in addition to their tape, the old punch cards, etc. He was based in Houston control back for the first 3 Apollo missions.

Amazon [MEDIA=amazon]B00KKNVD3K[/MEDIA] View: https://www.amazon.com/Beer-Can-Chicken-Head-Bug-eye/dp/B00KKNVD3K/ref=sr_1_7?s=lawn-garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1506805898&sr=1-7&keywords=ceramic+chicken+cooking+stand [MEDIA=amazon]B00KKOQU32[/MEDIA] View: https://www.amazon.com/Beer-Can-Chicken-Head-Football/dp/B00KKOQU32/ref=sr_1_9?s=lawn-garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1506805898&sr=1-9&keywords=ceramic+chicken+cooking+stand [MEDIA=amazon]B00KKNVD3K[/MEDIA] View: https://www.amazon.com/Beer-Can-Chicken-Head-Bug-eye/dp/B00KKNVD3K/ref=sr_1_7?s=lawn-garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1506805898&sr=1-7&keywords=ceramic+chicken+cooking+stand [MEDIA=amazon]B00KKOVJ0Q[/MEDIA] View: https://www.amazon.com/Beer-Can-Chicken-Head-Southwestern/dp/B00KKOVJ0Q/ref=sr_1_6?s=lawn-garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1506805898&sr=1-6&keywords=ceramic+chicken+cooking+stand

On a totally unrelated note... was looking for ceramic chicken cooking utensils (for beer butt chicken) and found some of these [ATTACH]1713._xfImport[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]1714._xfImport[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]1715._xfImport[/ATTACH] Kind of cute for the first time or two and would make a good joke gift for a pit cooker.

It's from trying to keep all thoughts in one central area. But I agree, it does make it harder to "keep up with".... especially when one is as simple minded as our <un>friendly Brit.

Space is interesting... the worst thing that the federal government did was when they started cutting the NASA budget... but NASA was also at fault for some of it. There needs to be a few areas of pursuit that are concentrated on, but NASA was like a smooth bore shotgun being fired with pellets (ideas/programs) just flying everywhere and not concentrated towards an end goal.

It's referred to an an implication You specifically stated with the implication that they should have those funds to be able to be used... but without a clarification of how much of those said funds are already devoted elsewhere your argument that they should be able to do it based upon that figure is specious. Polls are what polls are.

That was where the Constellation program made more sense. Hell, even in science fiction from the "dark ages" the moon was typically a jumping off point. I personally am for going back as I do believe it will be the doorway to the solar system for us. Eventual construction of ships there using primarily automated processes. We still need to work on a better drive system than one that relies on chemical propellant. That is pretty much required to escape Earth currently but if production could be moved to the moon for the vehicles then other power plants become even more likely to be developed since they won't require escaping earths gravity well.

Poor @Sheldon, he ignores the fact that there is more to NASA than simple moon shots or the desire to go to the moon to concentrate on. IV&V Current Projects The Real Cost Of NASA Missions Oh, and I was incorrect on the popularity of going to the moon in the Apollo era... it was the governments desire to go and not the public. <attached file with research - save you having to register to get it> Landing a Man on the Moon: The Public's View The Myth of America's Love Affair with the Moon DH poll: No sense returning to moon For Mars [ATTACH=full]1710._xfImport[/ATTACH] NASA needs to up their game to get in the public view. The killing of the Constellation program (a governmental decision from Obama) really hurt the "return to the moon" supporters. He moved the target from the moon to Mars. The Constellation program also targeted a sustained presence on the moon. That program didn't complete because of lack of technical knowledge, but lack of government support for spending. I refer you to previous posts about the SLS and above about the Constellation program. It's not a lack of knowledge... but a lack of money. But there is no over-arching need for a HLV currently so they spend their available funds elsewhere and the Constellation program was cancelled not due to technical inabilities but changes in the target to pursue and the fact that it would be around 2020 from some estimates before they flew. And there is no "praying" that they can make it again. The building process would be duplicated with not much difficulty I'm sure.. other than the environmentalist yelling about the use of asbestos, and all those other harmful/toxic items involved. The Constellation program was targeted to use some technology brought forward from the Apollo program and improved upon (think it was the human cargo module)

It's not like a production line for a Ford truck. You don't see them maintaining the Model A/T production line and simply improving it... it's redesigned. The rockets are done the same way. The issue is there has not been that much of a need for a heavy lift mechanism (ISS was one exception) and the current technology supports the needs that they have. Sorta like using a semi truck to haul a 14ft. single axel trailer. Overkill for the job. AND, apparently something you are ignoring, they HAVE improved it... in the SLS system. They just don't have the funds to go faster than what they are currently. NASA consumed about 4% of federal spending during their peak (moon shot era) and around .49% in 2013. Kick that budget back up to the 60's level of the federal budget and guess what. They can get there faster. Keeping that older tech online would not have been economically feasible as it would have pulled from NASA budget that allowed the ISS, Skylab, the shuttles and various space missions at their given funding levels for the time. The issue is NOT keeping the "tech" on hand but not sufficiently budgeting NASA so that progressions can be made. Instead of constantly "upgrading" a dated design by Werner, it is more effective to design & produce a modern platform (which they are doing with the SLS). And there is a different mindset by the public now. Back then, there was societal desire to go to the moon, which translated to more funds for NASA. That desire is no longer there.

This engine is more powerful than any in US history for space flight... But no, let's maintain the 60/70 stuff to use. Point is Sheldon, they HAVE maintained the tech (designs) and improved upon it. The issue is that they haven't been given sufficient funds to create the items. There are higher priorities from the federal government than space travel - and have been for decades. Back in the era of the moon shots we had the cold war going on and were in a race with the big bad USSR.

The building tech that was used on Saturn is not the same as what is currently being used. But why maintain an infrastructure that is going to cost billions of dollars for rare use. Designing is no longer done via paper/pen. It is done with computers and simulations on the effectiveness of said design are also done by computer. Hell they've got a design out there right now (the SLS) that if they US government would increase the budget for would have us there in a few years.... and it would be an improved delivery vehicle over what we had then. Space Launch System This tech FAR exceeds the 1960'70 era shit.

So you argue the point that the tech in reference that was used was 1960/70 era tech? And that we should have maintained it (and the infrastructure to recreate it) to use now? You do realize that it can be recreated... but the cost would not be cost effective. Of course, why would we want to go to other planets, we already know they are flat and revolve around the earth. And all those satellite photos from different spacial locations that show as a sphere are all faked as we know if a photo of the earth was taken from edge on it would look like a plate.

If you actually watch the video (his comment starts around 1:50) he's pretty much supporting what I said.. we currently don't have the infrastructure to rebuild the devices... which would have been 1960/70 era tech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxJbQpdYINg View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxJbQpdYINg at about 1:50

Don Pettit is most likely who you are referring to. And what he is referring to is that he'd go to the moon, but currently we don't have that technology any longer - which is correct as we no longer have the 60's/70's era tech, we are working on improved tech.

Well, if he's a big enough fucking idiot to want to use 1960's tech to go to the moon, more power to him - unless he's saying they had some alien technology or had tech that better than what we have today.... Now, what astronaut is stating that and I'm sure we can figure out a likely reason WHY he's stating that. Oh, and I acknowledged that the tech that was present AT THAT TIME AND IN USE AT THAT TIME was most likely disposed of... but I go back to why use 1960/70 tech when we have much more efficient tech. And you are trying to be a smart ass.. but guess what Sheldon.. I actually WORKED with an individual (he was over the IT department) when I was in IT that was present for 3 of the Apollo shots and WAS involved with the IT/computer system... so I do have insight into what went on there as it was really interesting to talk with him IN PERSON.

Me... because I know for a fact that the module used to power the Saturn V rocket computer doesn't even compare to 1980's computer technology much less what we have today (specifically in speed and raw processing power) and that the new Dragon series rockets are more efficient. EDIT <added after finally finding the info> The AGC (and is in one of the photos above) which basically flew the module had approximately 64Kbyte of memory and operated at 0.043MHz. Which "NASA astronaut" is stating that? And you do realize that most all astronauts want to go back to the moon - just to go back there. They have no real reason to. There is a natural draw to it by man and most ALL of them would want to be the first one to "return to the moon" as they realize that by the time we do an effective planet visit shot they are going to be to old to be in the running and won't have a chance to make it into history. The only way I (and many other folks way smarter than me) see going back to the moon is to begin building a lunar base to use as a jump point for space travel. We are not there in being able to currently create a base that would be self-supportive - but again that is where a bunch of research for visiting Mars would come in handy. The active encouragement today is to have private industry carry much of the space load... and that is also pissing those "NASA astronauts" off as all their buddy-buddy/good ole boy system that they invested so much time in doesn't mean shit as now it's a private business and not the government doing it. Here's How Much a Ticket on a SpaceX Flight to the Moon Will Cost | Inverse And for your edification, and what is pissing many of those astronauts off since it's a lowly civilian and not their well trained self - <emphasis added by me> So it looks like private industry is going to be hitting the moon first. The Apollo program cost us around $200B in todays dollars - and I personally can think of several areas that much money could be better spent than going to to moon just to say "we went back". Until we are ready to have a permanent presence on the moon there is no real need to go back there. There are higher priority areas that funds are being directed towards that were either not present in the 1960/70's or of lower usage/need. The war on terror social welfare, and many other areas that have increased. And NASA does have SLS in process of development - it's just running slow and has a target date in 2023 to have a manned space mission launched.... but the private industry (read Elon Musk mainly) will most likely be there first.

Why the hell would the US destroy a carrier that helped win WWII, or combat planes that helped win WWI/WWII that could still float/fly. You don't keep shit around that is basically useless when you can create better, more effective items. The biggest technology to get there (and back) is still present, but just in improved forms. The rocket motors currently in use are MUCH more reliable and efficient than the Saturn V ones were and the computers outpace what was present then.

Did you ever research the cost (actual) involved? Cost/benefit ratio is not really there. What exact benefit would we gain by going back other than to say "we've been back there again". Would it not be MORE beneficial to work on going to some of our sister flat planets like Mars? The technology that got us to the moon would NOT get us to Mars.

Well, I'm sure there was shit from that era destroyed... why should it all be kept. Is that astronaut a secret hoarder? I don't really see the need to keep a lot of shit that was one-off use for the shots. Could it be used now to create a new "rocket" or space transportation module more efficiently than what we can build with todays technology? I thought that was what diagrams (construction related) were there for.