Flat Earth thread

Discussion in 'Master Debaters' started by Paul, Sep 8, 2017.

  1. Claims he'd go to the moon in a nanosecond, but can't, because we've "destroyed" that technology.

    He must be talking about Kubrick's technology then.
  2. Exactly, so why can we not go back now?
  3. 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.
  4. Why in the hell would the US destroy the technology that allowed us to get to the moon? That makes absolutely zero sense.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Mars.... hahahhahhahhaah.

    We cannot even make it "back" to the moon, yet we are going to discuss getting to Mars? That's laughable.
  8. So you say....

    But a NASA astronaut says it isn't.

    So, who is right?
  9. #49 tracy perry, Sep 30, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017
    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.
  10. Lol. Pat yourself on the back.

    That's hilarious.

    A guy who literally works for NASA, who is an astronaut, says the technology has been destroyed and we cannot go to the moon. And you are right and he's not?

    Tell me, how many space missions were you a part of again?
  11. The difference, he wants to go, but he has stated its not possible to do so "now". He can want forever. Doesn't change anything since he cannot get there.
  12. 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.
  13. Obviously he's not stating to use the 60's tech. Don't be obtuse. We all know technology can be made better. He's on record saying that its been destroyed, and it's too painful to build back... so currently we DON'T EVEN HAVE THE ABILITY to get back there (emphasis added by me). Yet, people want to talk about Mars, and "touring " the moon... hahahhahahahah.

    Of course you did. I knew that before this thread started.
  14. #54 tracy perry, Sep 30, 2017
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2017
    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.

  15. I asked this:

    Nothing smartass, just asked the question since you stated you know more about the current Space Program than a NASA astronaut.

    By your reply, I'll assume zero.
  16. Which currently cannot get us back to the moon. As I've stated.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. Yeah, maintain it.

    Not improve it or build on it....

    Makes sense.

    Oh wait, screw it, let's just trash it all, never go back, and hit Mars instead. Yeah, much more logical.