Space Thread!

[marcopolo123]

alright science man...what u got to say about that foot print that dude put on the moon. NASA and all the other "science" people say that there is no water on the moon. therefor there is no moister present in any dirt on the ground. And i hope you know that you need water in dirt in order for it to hold the shape of a foot print..water acts as glue to the dirt particles..=D

 

[marcopolo123]

...and lets not talk about radiation..because ofcourse it doesnot effect human biengs!!

 

[cannabineer]

1) They've found billions of tons of water on the moon. Indirectly, mind you ... but there sure seems to be accessible ice in a crater at the lunar south pole.
2) The lunar surface isn't dirt. I contains very many sharp-edged particles that'll do very nicely to hold a sharp-edged impression.

 

[cannabineer]

...and lets not talk about radiation..because ofcourse it doesnot effect human biengs!!

Sex does that.
As for affecting humans ... it does. cn

 

[marcopolo123]

ok lets pretend that i agree with you and your tons of ice and sharp particles, sand also has sharp particles but not all types of sand of course, why havent we went up to the moon since the 60's?? I mean its been half a centry now and we havent stepped a foot on there "again". and why havent they build those space stations on the moon?

and i hope everyone here discusses things without hostility...unlike that guy "mindphuck"

@mindphuck
why are you calling people whacos or conspiracy theorist...dont be bias...look at the facts that both sides present, weigh them out, think logically about whats going on, then open you mouth!!..dont be so ignorant man...


now back to radiation talk...ummm the spacecraft that the those men were in would've needed a SOLID (not perforated) lead sheilding to protect them from the van allen belts...and if you know how to do some basic math you would find out that if the ship waas lined with lead it wouldve been too heavy to be propelled by that rocket...so it apears that the ship was not lined with lead which means they couldve not survived the radiation from the VAB, and the even worse radiation/solar wind outside of those belts...

honestly i dont care if we made it to the moon or not all i care about is how they manipulate science in such a hedious way...they just lie to us and say that they went right through the VAB!!! just like that!!...wtf man that radiation is a lot worse than any kind of radiation we can create on earth...its mother nature but at a universe scale

here is something cool
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyl1LsB7Xr8

 

[marcopolo123]

Sex does that.
As for affecting humans ... it does. cn

yaa thanks..i didnt know that

 

[cannabineer]

Why pretend that you agree with me if you don't? It doesn't jibe well with your claimed desire to discuss things without hostility if your first sentence is equivalent to pre-emptively saying I'm full of, uuhhh, chocolate.

Here's a little something about the Van Allen belts. You can dodge them on the z axis. cn

"The Van Allen belts are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing through them would be fried."
Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principal danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.
The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.
Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts. This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts.

 

[mindphuk]

ok lets pretend that i agree with you and your tons of ice and sharp particles, sand also has sharp particles but not all types of sand of course, why havent we went up to the moon since the 60's?? I mean its been half a centry now and we havent stepped a foot on there "again". and why havent they build those space stations on the moon?

and i hope everyone here discusses things without hostility...unlike that guy "mindphuck"

People that make unsubstantiated claims as fact rather than label them your belief, deserves intellectual hostility, especially when in the process you denigrate the names of many heroic people. I would be just as hostile if you said the Holocaust didn't happen.

I am also hostile because of the way people like you distort what really is known by science and how science works to uncover the truth. You are an enemy of science hence deserve my hostility because of my defense of science.

@mindphuck
why are you calling people whacos or conspiracy theorist...dont be bias...look at the facts that both sides present, weigh them out, think logically about whats going on, then open you mouth!!..dont be so ignorant man...

To believe in conspiracy theories is to avoid logic. It's not bias to criticize the poor logic required to believe that the lunar landing was a hoax when every single piece of 'evidence' that has been presented has been thoroughly discredited and debunked. Don't make the assumption I haven't looked at the facts and heard both sides. I have and come to the conclusion that your side is full of whacko conspiracy theorists that don't have a shred of proof.

 

[marcopolo123]

Why pretend that you agree with me if you don't? It doesn't jibe well with your claimed desire to discuss things without hostility if your first sentence is equivalent to pre-emptively saying I'm full of, uuhhh, chocolate.

Here's a little something about the Van Allen belts. You can dodge them on the z axis. cn

"The Van Allen belts are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing through them would be fried."
Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principal danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.
The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.
Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts. This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts.

hey man i never said you were full of "chocolate"..because your not the one responsible for the misleading media!!

maybe my brain was mislead with conspiracy ...the cameras that the astronauts wore on thier suits had etched referance crosshairs on the lens..so how come in some of the images you can see the crosshairs behind objects..that includes one of the astronauts?.....on other photos the sun is in the background behind one of the astronauts but on that same image you can clearly see the front of his suit which is facing the camera. go out with your phone before sunset so the sun would be low and take a picture of whatever you want but make sure the sun is backlighting that object and let me know what you see......and please im not starting a war here...im checkin out your point of view and giving it a serious thought and i hope you do the same with mine.


@mindphuck

ok so your saying that im making claims facts but the ONLY facts you have are a bunch of photographs and vedios!! that almost any amature photographer today can duplicate!! so back in the 60's if they posessed technology to take them to the moon dont you think they have enough technology to make a video that looks like the moon surface?

"to belive conspiracy theorist is to avoid logic"....dude where on earth did you get that from...if you were presented by a case which has more than one side to it you must look at all of the sides individually and evaluate what is fact from fiction..thats logic...and how would you know which side is the conspiracy?....so here all of us including myself are taking our "facts" from one source which is the media..i just chose to look on one of the other sides just for a bit, and the other side is presenting more facts than the other side wich only shows me photos and claims!

 

[mindphuk]

@mindphuck

ok so your saying that im making claims facts but the ONLY facts you have are a bunch of photographs and vedios!!

Only photos and videos, along with personal witnesses and physical evidence such as moon rocks and regolith, (which happen to differ from terrestrial rocks in levels of isotopes http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast23feb_2/), and probably the best, a reflector placed on the moon by Apollo 11 astronauts that can be used by you, me or anyone that desires.

so back in the 60's if they posessed technology to take them to the moon dont you think they have enough technology to make a video that looks like the moon surface?

This is not an argument. That a moon landing can be faked does not mean it was. This is typical of conspiracy theories, making up facts to fit observations. Using this technique everything is history is subject to doubt and question. I don't think there is anything wrong with doubting, I'm a skeptic, but at some point you have to decide what you think is the most likely truth. The moon landing hoax just makes too many unsupported assumptions to come to the conclusion.

"to belive conspiracy theorist is to avoid logic"....dude where on earth did you get that from...if you were presented by a case which has more than one side to it you must look at all of the sides individually and evaluate what is fact from fiction..thats logic...and how would you know which side is the conspiracy?

Again, you mistake me for someone that hasn't done the evaluation.

....so here all of us including myself are taking our "facts" from one source which is the media..i just chose to look on one of the other sides just for a bit, and the other side is presenting more facts than the other side wich only shows me photos and claims!

You can investigate these claims without using "the media" as a source. You can visit NASA, interview astronauts, bounce a laser off of the reflector on the moon, read the scientific literature on isotope levels in moon rocks.

Let's see some of your 'evidence.'

 

[cannabineer]

Marcopolo, I am not quite up on my Apollo denier theories. I do remember the thing about the crosshairs photo ... it proved to be an ordinary, explainable optical effect. Here is a site that describes much of the peculiarities of Apollo photos, and explains them to my satisfaction.
It also has a backlit pic of Buzz Aldrin. If you look in his faceplate, you see Armstrong catching full sun on a white suit, and some of the Lem. That'll throw enough light to provide the "fill" for the picture ... if you remember that the lunar surface is remarkably dark, like fresh blacktop.

I took a nice pic of my xgf into a bright sunset. She was not a silhouette because she was facing me while I was leaning for stability against a white car.

http://www.clavius.org/photoret.html

<edit> If you look really hard at the photos and videos of the Apollo flights and landings, many many little details crop up that cannot have been faked using the tech and knowledge of the time. The fact that these photos etc. have stood the test of time is powerfully suggestive to me that they are the real deal as presented. The counterproposals that I've seen, say, in the Comments section of Youtube's astronaut clips ... I haven't found one yet that stood up to rational inquiry any better than a croissant to a firehose.

I am very leery of conspiracy theories in general, for two reasons.
1) The human psyche seems super prone to believing them. Conspiracy theories are like cane sugar ... bad for you, but who can have just one?
2) Concealing a large technical secret is HARD, especially in the presence of the necessary elaborate cover story.
C) ~grin~ The conspiracy theories that rely on a dismissal of physics (Apollocaust, Haarp and Chemtrails fit this category, as do the juicier Area 51 tales) are easily shredded by a remarkably casual application of physics.

The problem there is that there are so many who won't believe physics, even though they can be built up piece by piece from basic principles with the same result every time. And yet we have people who have grown up to hold jobs, operate investment accounts and rebuild classic car engines ... who believe in such I'd laugh-but-for-crying shite like the Electric Universe theories (Velikovsky reheated with gravy). cn

 

[Dank Raptor]

[video=youtube;aqlo_spATEM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqlo_spATEM[/video]

 

[Weedasaurus]

so what happens to the international space station.

 

[marcopolo123]

ok you guys win..but the same people that you guys believe also told us that jet fuel melted the steel in the world trade centers...before anyone here attacks me, i truly honor and respect the men and women that died in there...a quick google search tells me that:

Jet fuel Open air burning temp. is 500-599 F ....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
Carbon Steel melting point is 2600-2800 F....http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

and they use mild steel for construction such as Re-bars, I-beams, steel mesh, etc..

so if the same people that went to the moon are trying to change science as it pleases them, its hard for me to believe them....and i dont care what happens.. if you have something etched on a camera lens there is no way that it could appear behind an object in an image...

and for the steel buildings, no steel construction building has ever colapsed do to fires! google that s**t

 

[marcopolo123]

"The problem there is that there are so many who won't believe physics, even though they can be built up piece by piece from basic principles with the same result every time. And yet we have people who have grown up to hold jobs, operate investment accounts and rebuild classic car engines ... who believe in such I'd laugh-but-for-crying shite like the Electric Universe theories (Velikovsky reheated with gravy). cn"

dude thats exactly what i dont understand....its just physics
and i am an educated man..not some teenager posting up on here..

what do you mean by "Electric Universe theories"...if your talking about electricty from space..such as the device that T.H. Morray built and your saying thats nonsense, then you need to brush up on your physics a bit because people have acomplished such things.
idk what the "Electric Universe" is but i youtubed it and i saw Tesla in the background of one of them, and that man is responsible for the electricity that we use today, without him we wouldnt have all of todays luxries!

 

[mindphuk]

ok you guys win..but the same people that you guys believe also told us that jet fuel melted the steel in the world trade centers...before anyone here attacks me, i truly honor and respect the men and women that died in there...a quick google search tells me that:

Jet fuel Open air burning temp. is 500-599 F ....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel
Carbon Steel melting point is 2600-2800 F....http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

and they use mild steel for construction such as Re-bars, I-beams, steel mesh, etc..

so if the same people that went to the moon are trying to change science as it pleases them, its hard for me to believe them....and i dont care what happens.. if you have something etched on a camera lens there is no way that it could appear behind an object in an image...

and for the steel buildings, no steel construction building has ever colapsed do to fires! google that s**t

[video=youtube;N2TMVDYpp2Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&amp;v=N2TMVDYpp2Q[/video]

 

[marcopolo123]

nice video

1) Black smoke - air fuel ratio is too high (rich), oxygen deprived fire which means it can not burn up to maximum temp. Idk how in the world an OPEN-Air kerosene flame can reach 2010 F like in the vid.
2)That is single loaded i-beam not even held by the supports...its just resting there. I dont think thats how the towers were build..and of course NIST said that the fireproofing fell off upon impact. Thats an awsome story, they must have been inside when the building burned!
3) They heated up just one beam...where are the rest of the beams that make up some kind if structure...the WTC had trusses not only i-beams, also a small concrete slab to serve as flooring and concrete is an exellent refractory material. They should make at least a i-beam box frame then burn that kerosene
4) The steel structure would draw the heat away from the hottest point by conduction and the steel itself will heat up by convection from the open air fire. Therefor you will need more time and energy (jouls) to reach the desired deformation temperatures.
5) I dont think that the world trade center was a swimming pool, so why are those people in vids are filling up an excavated hole with fuel and igniting it?....come on man dont you think fuel would escape out through any hole?...of course it would because the plane made quite a big one on its way in.

not to mension that i beam is kind of small, and they did state that in the vid...open up a thermodynamics book...look up the calorific value of jet fuel, work out how many tons of steel you need to heat up, choose the desired temp you want...youl need to know how long the gas has burned for before you start...or the volume of the gas...and keep in mind that its not gonna be an isothermal process and its not going to be an adiabatic process...and since its not an adiabatic process, which is impossible unless the precess is done exteremly fast so no time is given for the Q (heat) to conduct, convict, or radiate, you'll need to work out how much heat was carried away by the wind and other objects such as the other connected I-beams, trusses, etc..

i studied that stuff back in the days but if you need help with those calculations let me know. the WTC was designed to take impact from planes, as engineers we must leave nothing to chance..

and i think your the man i talked to about logic..how about this: someone who fails to fly a sesna goes out hijacks a 747 with a box cutter, makes a u-turn IN THE AIR,he has no coordinates of the towers, but somehow eyeballs it from a thousand miles and magically and i repeat MAGICALLY aims with his trusty Shmidt and Bender scope and hits the building dead on at 500 mph!!!....that right there my friend is the most logical story ever!! and thats where the fun begins, if you think you got answers then we should talk about the pentagon...thats where titanium evaporates from the heat that it deals with every time it works

fighter jet pilots stated that its would be impossible to manuver that gigantic plane with that acuracy..commercial pilots have stated the same thing...but ofcourse those terrorists are professionals

 

[ultraviolet pirate]

i wish i knew how to post shit, im not too savvy with the computer, i would post the video of buzz aldrin having enough of the "you were never there" noise and punching the dude at the airport.

 

[cannabineer]

"The problem there is that there are so many who won't believe physics, even though they can be built up piece by piece from basic principles with the same result every time. And yet we have people who have grown up to hold jobs, operate investment accounts and rebuild classic car engines ... who believe in such I'd laugh-but-for-crying shite like the Electric Universe theories (Velikovsky reheated with gravy). cn"

dude thats exactly what i dont understand....its just physics
and i am an educated man..not some teenager posting up on here..

what do you mean by "Electric Universe theories"...if your talking about electricty from space..such as the device that T.H. Morray built and your saying thats nonsense, then you need to brush up on your physics a bit because people have acomplished such things.
idk what the "Electric Universe" is but i youtubed it and i saw Tesla in the background of one of them, and that man is responsible for the electricity that we use today, without him we wouldnt have all of todays luxries!

If you want to be amused, here is a website taking the Electric Universe theories seriously. Some cool pics.

As for the "so many who won't believe physics" remark, please don't take it personally. Almost all hard-core "Apollo conspiracy" believers will hold onto their ideas quite tenaciously despite some very good, plausible counterarguments. You've shown me you are not one such, and I tip my hat.

As far as the 9/11 disaster and the melting point of steel ... the melting point is much less important than the softening point. Steel (even premium tool steel) will lose its temper at 500 degrees or less, and can be productively forged at 800 degrees, a barely visible dull red heat. If it's soft enough to forge, it will have lost its structural strength, and it's still two thousand degrees away from outright melting. cn

 

[marcopolo123]

If you want to be amused, here is a website taking the Electric Universe theories seriously. Some cool pics.

As for the "so many who won't believe physics" remark, please don't take it personally. Almost all hard-core "Apollo conspiracy" believers will hold onto their ideas quite tenaciously despite some very good, plausible counterarguments. You've shown me you are not one such, and I tip my hat.

As far as the 9/11 disaster and the melting point of steel ... the melting point is much less important than the softening point. Steel (even premium tool steel) will lose its temper at 500 degrees or less, and can be productively forged at 800 degrees, a barely visible dull red heat. If it's soft enough to forge, it will have lost its structural strength, and it's still two thousand degrees away from outright melting. cn

thanks cn...you have showed great manners while arguing and i respect that.

ya your right about the steel its not about the melting point..tempering is a process thats done on high carbon steels such as tool steels and HSS (high speed steel)...if your going to temper the steel then it has been hardened and you tempering would relive some stress from the steel and allows it to be more ductile, depending on the tempering process.

its about the yield strength and the tensile strength of the steel..yeild strength is where the plastic deformation begins and tensile is where the part will undergo necking, you can say it is the ultimate strength where after that it can no longer hold the stress applied
heat will cause those valued to drop but thats where engineers come in to do some math!

the truth about 9/11 can be revieled with only a stop watch! thats why i love physics...and i believe that you also do...so if you still remember those boring freefall equations we can use this one: t= sqaure root of (2*d/g)
t = time
d = distance in meters = 415 m (WTC2) Wtc1 is at 417 m which is similar
g = 9.81 m/s[SUP]2

[/SUP]we plug in the number and we get about 9.2 seconds..thats the time it takes for any object to fall to the ground from that height, neglecting wind resistance and assuming a constant gravitational force throughout the fall (the height can be neglected because its not that far away from the surface of the earth.

Now for the important logical part. the number above can be calculated by any one of us and it is 100 percent right, neglecting the things mentioned, which is close enough for our work here.
Imagine 30-stories worth of steel, concrete, and office stuff..if we drop it from that height WITHOUT anything to obstruct its way it would reach the ground at aproximatly 9.2 seconds. for you non physics folks, freefall time is not a function of mass its a function of height soo mass doesnot matter.

Now lets put a structure about 70-stories high in the way of the fallling 30 floors...what can you conclude? just straight thinking, nothing else, can tell us that the structure is going to resist the fall of that lump of steel and concrete (thats if it even breaks all the way ) causing the time it took to reach the ground to increase. and the last 30 floors should somewhat be intact because they must have crushed the rest of the building to reach the ground as they tell us.
the WTCs collapsed in about 10 seconds...thats fast dude!!..you have CONCRETE AND STEEL in the way!!! how is that even possible? (there is an answer for that ofcourse)


That right there is the ultimate and the easiest way that proofs 9/11 has some stories that are hidden!...

please go to youtube and calculate how long it took for the buildings to fall and let me know.

and please watch this vid and let me know of you thought...just look at the still pictures in there...and keep in mind that a buiding is not a piston and cylinder you can't get great compressions to happen in there...