Flat Earth thread

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

  1. I quoted your "improved tech" that we are working on. And as said 10000 times, it cannot get us back.

  2. Tracy, you are as bad as Gary going back and editing your posts and adding full paragraphs in.

    I get an error or two, but a full paragraph after I've replied twice.

    Impossible to follow along, just add another comment.
  3. 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.

  4. View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyWEMMEESfA

    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.
  5. Are you seriously that dense. Who in the hell ever said to keep it "as is"? Common sense as well as current reality says you upgrade it.

    Not trash it.

    Improved the shit out of it apparently. So much so, we currently cannot possibly make it back.
  6. 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.
  7. $52mil a day isn't enough budget? Laughable.

    Desire? Per who? And don't give me any sample poll. Unless that Q is asked of every single person, you cannot possibly answer that. Need proof of that, look at the sample polls picking Crooked Hillary to win (ALL of them).

    It's simple. You don't create something, get somewhere, destroy it, then pray you can make it again (which obviously hasn't been done yet).

  8. Wait, NASA can't get there on their budget, but you want me to believe Musk has the money to do it?

  9. NASA never designed a reusable rocket, Musk did. Called innovation man. You think because a big company has never done anything, no one else can?
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  10. NASA never designed one, because they don't do enough to make reusability worthwhile.

    Scan my posts, note where I've stated that, or assumed that.

    What I did state was how he could possibly afford to do it, yet NASA ( which has considerably more $ and manpower) cannot. And I do mean go to the moon, not make multiple missions.
  11. Sure they did when they had the space shuttle flying, and never bothered to get it done. Could they have done it, sure. They didn't do it because they didn't care about the cost because they got most/all of the money they ever needed and didn't have to be concerned about lowering the launch cost during the time it was flying, thanks to the taxpayers.

    Necessity is the mother of invention, as the saying goes.

    And yes, I think Musk has enough momentum and a big enough following now that he'll get things done before NASA can. Most of the smart rocket engineers want to work for someone like Musk vs someone like NASA.

    I'm not sure we'll be around to see it happen, but if I was a betting man I'd bet one of Musk's companies will land a human on Mars before NASA will, or even someone like Bezos will.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  12. 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
    Screen Shot 2017-09-30 at 2.21.51 PM.png

    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)

    Attached Files:

  13. Can't get to the moon, yet still talking about hitting Mars...
  14. Again, show me where I said such.

    You can't. Simply typing it doesn't mean I stated as much.

    And I've already replied to your polls. Unless EVERY single person had been asked, those polls are worthless. We've already seen that time and again.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. This thread is getting interesting.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  18. 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.
  19. I’ve always have been fascinated with the technology that goes into the support systems for space travel.
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  20. 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.
    • Like Like x 1