May 26, 2020, 12:27:03 AM

Author Topic: Mars: Inside SpaceX  (Read 8122 times)

Offline Rick Nasher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #45 on: December 28, 2018, 09:23:42 PM »
@3DzForMe
Quote
Humans were a pet project for some aliens, however, the aliens weren't aware of the 'Humans aren't just for christmas' belief. They got bored after we built some pyramids.....
Sounds pretty similar to the Alien movie series. There was a time I could believe in things like that(I'm a big SF fan), but there never seems to be a real good plausible answer to the big question why? - Just because the aliens can?
Seems like wasting a lot of time and effort for a more intelligent species that has apparently got something like warp-tech, nearly unlimited energy and probably superb bio-tech. Unless they're just as stupid as we are, never evolved, only stumbled upon the tech by accident and misuse it for bs. 


@meems
Quote
The Russian space effort was faked too.
Meanwhile, Russian media has often opposed or dismissed US claims, but to no effect on the western public. No one in Russia held a magic red card that if played would cause everyone in the west to say 'oh it was all staged'
Big old 'Why' applies here too.




Perhaps I'm naïve, but I just find it all a bit implausible, wishful thinking of sf-writers. Way too many holes in these theories. I'm looking for a better reason/explanations.

Not saying you guys can't be right, but it seems all too popular sf saga-ish. Why would any more advanced civilization, perhaps 200 million years older than us, occupy themselves with something silly like that? They only need to look at their own history, no need to do a replay on another planet. Are we a soap-tv thing to them? Really that's the best such an advanced alien species could come up with??



The only relatively new theory I've heard is that 'living in a simulated universe' thing, which I figure could be used by advanced super AI as a model to predict the future. Same as we do the weather(we can already look into the past by just looking out the window up to the sky), but still doesn't all make too much sense for I've had too many odd experiences pointing in other directions(or I'm being fooled/directed).

One might just as well believe in a God. Which for a lot of people is a fairytale as well for the ignorant, as it cannot be proven just like that(I do not agree to that btw).

I've had some weird encounters and either the Aliens, the Sim or Greater Being theory could be responsible, but
I'm betting on the latter. For me that doesn't rule out that the other ones can't be true at the same time as well.
For me there's no such thing as creationists vs scientists. One could be the means by which the other manifests itself. Ruling out one or the other without being able to prove doesn't sound very scientific to me.


Mind you: I have been able to prove anomalies in our every day concept of reality that couldn't rationally be explained by other people in the past(with our current knowledge), up to the point it scared the sh*t out of them and never wanted to discus the topic with me again for it made them insecure about their rock solid believes. So there definitely is something out there we have too little knowledge about. It being God, Aliens, an AI Sim or all that at the same time or something completely different, is all possible to me unless proven/argumentized in an undeniable maner.



Proof and explanation of the big why for above mentioned theories, besides that the numbers do not add up with our limited resources, knowledge and insights?


_______________________________________
 B3D + physics + shaders + X-platform = AGK!
:D ..ALIENBREED *LIVES* (thanks to Qube).. :D
_______________________________________

Offline meems

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #46 on: December 28, 2018, 10:58:15 PM »
>Big old 'Why' applies here too.
> Why would someone lie to make themselves look better?

hmm... if I have to explain this to you then its not worth explaining this to you.

Online Steve Elliott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2437
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #47 on: December 28, 2018, 11:14:38 PM »
lol  ;D
Windows 10, 64-bit, 16Gb RAM, CPU Intel i5, 3.2 GHz, Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 (2Gb).
MacOS Catalina, 64-bit, 8Gb RAM, CPU Intel i5, 2.3 Ghz, Intel Iris Plus Graphics 640 1536 MB.
Linux Mint 19.3, 64-bit, 16Gb RAM, CPU Intel i5, 3.2 GHz, Nvidia GeForce GTX 1050 (2Gb).
Raspberry pi 3 and 4.

Offline therevills

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #48 on: December 29, 2018, 01:18:03 AM »

Offline Rick Nasher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #49 on: December 30, 2018, 10:02:35 AM »
@meems
Quote
hmm... if I have to explain this to you then its not worth explaining this to you.

I'm not worthy.. lol


But these are the *exact* arguments creationists always use if you ask them about their believes:
"Don't ask, just take these little shreds of 'evidence' and don't think any further than this - it is just the way it is."
Then they suddenly lack the energy and willingness to explain(perhaps because really they can't and it's just their believes?)

I find that rather silly, no disrespect. :P
I feel one should never stop asking why-oh-why(or be stopped from), but hey.. to each their own.

Enjoy  ;)



_______________________________________
 B3D + physics + shaders + X-platform = AGK!
:D ..ALIENBREED *LIVES* (thanks to Qube).. :D
_______________________________________

Offline MagosDomina

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
    • Aspiring game developer website.
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #50 on: December 31, 2018, 03:32:41 AM »
Oddly enough the best proof for NASA faking many of there feats is from NASA themselves...

I already mentioned this in detail in my previous posts.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/multimedia/project-lola.html

The U.S. had to beat the Russians no matter what and after spending around what equates to roughly $200 billion I'd say it worked. Because at the end of it the U.S. stood the victor in an emerging new world as the Soviet Union collapsed, all while maintaining dominance of the new frontier known as Space. Now I remember in 2002 Donald Rumsfeld announced that more than $2 trillion in Pentagon funds were missing. So if we were to trace all missing funds back to the start of the Apollo missions how much was really spent if we include all the black projects?

The point I'm making is anything is possible when you are given nearly unlimited resources. No one care argue that incredible technology came out as a result of the space race but let's not kid ourselves. The real intention of the government was to advance a strategic advantage using technology, under the song of scientific endeavors and national pride.

Central hub for my Game Design related activities.
http://www.magosdomina.com/

Windows 7 PRO 64-bit, 48Gb RAM, CPU: Dual Hexacore Intel Xeon 3.33 GHZ, Nvidia Quadro 5800FX 4Gb x 2 SLI.

Offline therevills

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 607
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #51 on: December 31, 2018, 04:14:40 AM »
Oddly enough the best proof for NASA faking many of there feats is from NASA themselves...

I already mentioned this in detail in my previous posts.
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/multimedia/project-lola.html

And that proves what? That they were planning to land on the moon...

Offline MagosDomina

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
    • Aspiring game developer website.
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #52 on: December 31, 2018, 04:25:33 AM »
Read my earlier posts you're missing a lot of context. As mentioned in the post already...
Central hub for my Game Design related activities.
http://www.magosdomina.com/

Windows 7 PRO 64-bit, 48Gb RAM, CPU: Dual Hexacore Intel Xeon 3.33 GHZ, Nvidia Quadro 5800FX 4Gb x 2 SLI.

Offline meems

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #53 on: December 31, 2018, 12:39:28 PM »
Quote
But these are the *exact* arguments creationists always use if you ask them about their believes:
>"Don't ask, just take these little shreds of 'evidence' and don't think any further than this - it is just the way it is."

I don't know who you are quoting, but its not me.





Offline Naughty Alien

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #54 on: January 01, 2019, 04:16:47 PM »
..NASA faking things all the time..so called astronauts pulling cables to stabilize each other while floating, another one disappearing like a ghost (faded out) while background hes moving trough remain same , now they cant go further  than low earth orbit due radiation(NASA engineers own words) and they need to solve these challenges before sending human trough mentioned regions of space...i mean..whatever..lol..

..based on mainstream science, things looks like:

1) Pressure at sea level = 760 torr
2) Absolute vacuum = 0 torr
3) Moon surface = 1x10(-11) to 1x10(-17) torr

..this means that pressure difference is 10-10.3 tons a square meter at moon surface (outer space), or 98066.5 - 101008.5N .. or in something visually easy to understand, its equal to 3 asian elephants standing on the surface of 1 square meter..human skin has about 2 square meter of surface, so spacesuit has to be more in order to be comfy, so i guess its between 3 to 4 square meter..that means it had to sustain stress equal of 9 to 12 asian elephants standing on that suit unwrapped...thats some mighty quality material they use..same apply to 6mm thick aluminium panels LM module was built from...you could bent 6mm panel easy by small hammer. Imagine 3 elephants standing on the aluminium sheet 6mm thick. 1 m square surface?? Multiply that by how many square meter of surface LM actually had and forces(static only) are mighty..

..pressurized LM/Suits possibly are less than 760 torr but since they havent used pure oxygen for living atmosphere, variation from 760 torr couldnt be that much as they had to live in there some time..


..some mighty achievement we cant do today but they destroyed such cool tech..


Offline Madjack

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 60
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #55 on: January 01, 2019, 10:40:42 PM »
Quote
Moon surface = 1x10(-11) to 1x10(-17) torr..this means that pressure difference is 10-10.3 tons a square meter at moon surface (outer space), or 98066.5 - 101008.5N .. or in something visually easy to understand, its equal to 3 asian elephants standing on the surface of 1 square meter.

NA - a negative exponent means how many times to divide by the exponent, so the pressure at the moon's surface is almost zero, not '3 asian elephants'.
Seriously, what are you smoking these days?

Offline Naughty Alien

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #56 on: January 02, 2019, 01:42:02 AM »
negative exponent is decimal place behind zero man...something like 0.00000000000..  means..environment of the moon is bigger than 0 but less than 760 torr... that means that INSIDE suit pressure has to be close to 760 torr or our beloved astronot will die, while outside of the suit is moon environment which is close to zero)...that makes pressure difference between inside suit and environment in a range i mentioned, mighty 10 t0 10.3 tons a square meter roughly...so what smoking are you talking about?? Cant subtract 2 different numbers represented as pressure inside enclosed system(suit) and outside (moon surface) to see what is difference? Am i smoking something?? What kind of question is that.

2 pressure systems, separated by solid barrier, one at approx 760 torr another at 11 to 17 decimal places after zero..and you tell me that there is no stress on internal structure of higher presurized system?? If thats the truth that car you driving will sit dead ant not move an inch as internal combustion engine will not give a damn about pressure inside combustion chamber vs air intake vs expansion, airplane should not have an issue with rapid decompression then, and so on....

..what am i smoking??

Offline Matty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1028
    • MattiesGames
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #57 on: January 02, 2019, 03:18:37 AM »
That is a very, very interesting point Naughty Alien.

Here's something to consider - I can actually see a good point here - not sure what the answer is but:

Pressure inside suit: 1 atmosphere
Pressure outside suit: effectively 0 atmospheres.

A submarine:

WW2 submarine could go to a depth of 300 metres before being 'crushed' by the pressure.

Water at 1,000 metres is approximately 30 atmospheres.

I can't give an answer as to whether the pressure ratio (multiplication/division) between inside and outside is important OR the pressure difference (addition/subtraction) but that answer would make things much, much clearer with this point. And either confirm or deny the reality of what you are saying.

EDIT:As discussed with work colleague after writing this :

A balloon, let us say exists on Earth. I blow it up with my mouth - a party balloon.

Let us say the pressure gets to 10 atmospheres inside the balloon before it pops and the atmosphere outside is 1 atmosphere.

Now..put the balloon under water such that the pressure outside is 10 atmospheres.

Would the balloon pop at 100 atmospheres (as you suggest - ratio matters) or at 20 atmospheres (difference between inside and out is 10 atmospheres).

I think there is your answer.


Offline Naughty Alien

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 701
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #58 on: January 02, 2019, 04:27:48 AM »
..well..here we are at sea level enjoying breeze, and thats because we are equally affected by pressure inside/out so it seems everything is in required equilibrium for body to function..at least for organic matter, because any seriously higher pressure, regardless pressure ratio, will kill us too as chemical composition of liquids and what not in our body changes under specific pressure conditions(diving affect our body liquids, blood, due pressure, intoxicating us). 

Offline Rick Nasher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 790
Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
« Reply #59 on: January 02, 2019, 11:18:48 AM »
I can't say I'm a scientist or skilled enough to judge all these calculations, but even common airliners have a surprisingly thin skin as they are pressurized vessels, like a balloon and still can withstand quite a bit of force as long as it's evenly divided and are able to handle this at very low and high altitudes.

Couldn't this be a similar scenario? Or do airliners also exist only as a fabric of our(my) imagination?
If so, than I really don't trust any drinks I buy at airfields anymore for it just felt soo.. real.  ;D

But the point is: if aircrafts and submarines exist, is it then so unbelievable that spaceships can exist?

_______________________________________
 B3D + physics + shaders + X-platform = AGK!
:D ..ALIENBREED *LIVES* (thanks to Qube).. :D
_______________________________________

 

SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal