Flat Earth thread

[Sheldon]

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 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.

[13511]

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?

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.

[Sheldon]

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

 

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.

 

I actually WORKED with an individual when I was in IT what 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.

 

Of course you did. I knew that before this thread started.

[13511]

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.

Edited September 30, 2017 by 13511

[Sheldon]

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.

 

 

I asked this:

 

Tell me, how many space missions were you a part of again?

 

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.

[13511]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxJbQpdYINg

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

 

at about 1:50

[Sheldon]

we are working on improved tech.

 

Which currently cannot get us back to the moon. As I've stated.

[13511]

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.

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.

[13511]

Which currently cannot get us back to the moon. As I've stated.

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.

[Sheldon]

And that we should have maintained it to use now?

 

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.

[Sheldon]

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?

 

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

 

[ATTACH=full]1707._xfImport[/ATTACH]

[Sheldon]

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.

[13511]

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

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.

[13511]

 

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.

[Sheldon]

But no, let's maintain the 60/70 stuff to use.

 

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.

 

 

Point is Sheldon, they HAVE maintained the tech (designs) and improved upon it.

 

Improved the shit out of it apparently. So much so, we currently cannot possibly make it back.

[13511]

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.

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.

[Sheldon]

They just don't have the funds to go faster than what they are currently.

 

$52mil a day isn't enough budget? Laughable.

 

That desire is no longer there.

 

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).

 

Amusing.

[Sheldon]

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

 

Hahhahhahahahahahahahah.

[Sandyman]

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

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?

[Sheldon]

NASA never designed a reusable rocket, Musk did.

 

NASA never designed one, because they don't do enough to make reusability worthwhile.

 

You think because a big company has never done anything, no one else can?

 

 

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.

[Sandyman]

NASA never designed one, because they don't do enough to make reusability worthwhile.

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.

[13511]

$52mil a day isn't enough budget? Laughable.

 

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

 

In , President John F. Kennedy decided that NASA would send humans to the Moon before the end of the decade. At that time, each U.S. citizen was paying $20 per year to NASA. JFK needed that number to go up to $26 a year to help get our astronauts to the Moon. In 2015 dollars, the Apollo era budget would have been equivalent to each American paying over $200 a year to the space administration. If NASA still had that sort of funding in 2015, that would make its budget a whopping $65 billion dollars per year, compared to its actual budget of $17.5 billion. Instead, in 2014 each American paid an average of $54 per year to NASA.

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>

 

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).

 

Landing a Man on the Moon: The Public's View

 

The Myth of America's Love Affair with the Moon

The only time when more than half of the public believed Apollo was worth the expense came at the time of the Apollo 11 lunar landing in 1969, when Neil Armstrong took humanity's first steps on alien soil. Even then, only a lukewarm 53 percent of the public believed such a momentous historical occasion had been worth the cost.

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.

 

 

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).

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)

[Sheldon]

Can't get to the moon, yet still talking about hitting Mars...

[Sheldon]

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.

 

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.

[13511]

Can't get to the moon, yet still talking about hitting Mars...

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.