SyntaxBomb - Indie Coders

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Henri on November 24, 2018, 06:16:28 PM

Title: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Henri on November 24, 2018, 06:16:28 PM
Hi,

saw this documentary on youtube and thought it was inspirational:




-Henri
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Naughty Alien on November 25, 2018, 11:41:43 AM
..they cant go to the moon, and here is show about mars..i found this sort of things very upsetting actually, especially when 'future' is 'promised' by someone such as Musk...
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Steve Elliott on November 25, 2018, 03:05:05 PM
Quote
..they cant go to the moon, and here is show about mars.

Yeah he talks about rockets getting worse over time.  In 1969 they went to the moon, and now just lower Earth Orbit.  Hmmm.  Unless they didn't actually go to the moon using 60's technology.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: GaborD on November 25, 2018, 03:43:52 PM
My problem with the whole Mars thing is that it's another excuse for not focussing on saving Earth. Not sure the locust approach will work out well for us.
Industrial civilization has maybe 15 years left (I am an optimist) before our crap does us in, would kinda be smarter to start fixing things instead of dreaming about the next planet we can pillage. At the current rate, we won't get that far anyway.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Henri on November 25, 2018, 08:14:51 PM
Lot's of interesting comments. To be honest, I was kind of expecting NA's stance :-)

But,....

in order to make progress you got to start somewhere, and make use of the information provided to us  by smart people in history.

Quote
We can't go to the moon

Not at the moment. Regardless of if we been there or not. Not at least in a way that is usefull for future missions. Reason for this is obvious: We don't want to just visit there to play Moon ball, but to establish something long term. We can all agree that this haven't been done before, so there are lot of mundane technical issues to deal with (like how to eliminate the harmful effects of moon dust on machinery and humans etc. ) . We have the necessary rockets for heavy payloads in the form of Falcon heavy and this has been tested already.

What Elon has understood is that in order to make this all feasible is the need to bring the cost significantly down, and this is what is in my mind SpaceX's greatest contribution. And it has to be read into Elon's benefit that it's easier to say things then to actually do them. And he has done what he set out to do (in short of actually going into Mars).


Quote
he talks about rockets getting worse over time

For long time rocket business has been in the hands of governments, and governments have budgets, formed of tax payers money, and hence subject to public scrutiny. If money is directed somewhere, it has to come from somewhere else. This is true even in North-Korea (minus the public scrutiny).

With limited funding you have to prioritize and focus on whats important at that time. Near orbital research was the thing in the 80's and 90's (Skylab, Mir, Hubble, Iss etc.). In 2000 > There has been many science based surveys (WMap, the mapping of the universe, Kepler telescope for exoplanets etc.). And now we have seen the rise of the private sector as well, which has been crucial since the public funding for space exploration has slightly been diminishing over the years.


Quote
My problem with the whole Mars thing is that it's another excuse for not focusing on saving Earth

In my mind these things are not mutually exclusive. Going to Mars is not the solution for Earths problems, and I still have faith in humanity to take the necessary steps to assure that we pass the ball to our next generation in good conscience. First step is always acknowledging that there are problems to begin with. Despite the rhetorics of a certain individual in the US, I believe things are starting to sink in.

As for overpopulation, I've read that the apex is somewhere in 13 billion region, and will stay there assuming that the current trend is stable. Even though birthrate is high in Africa due to poverty and conditions, in China it's actually decreasing. In Finland where I live it's quite low. This is due to a statistical fact that when the living standards rise, the birthrate goes down.


Well, that's all for today :-)

-Henri
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Naughty Alien on November 26, 2018, 01:10:55 AM
Quote
Not at the moment. Regardless of if we been there or not. Not at least in a way that is usefull for future missions. Reason for this is obvious: We don't want to just visit there to play Moon ball, but to establish something long term. We can all agree that this haven't been done before, so there are lot of mundane technical issues to deal with (like how to eliminate the harmful effects of moon dust on machinery and humans etc. ) . We have the necessary rockets for heavy payloads in the form of Falcon heavy and this has been tested already.

..what is useful from past is that you have had bunch of blokes went there 6 times, radiation was not an issue, and yet, today they admitting that figuring out this problem(radiation) is critical not just for crew on board, but hardware as well, and they dont know how to sort it out TODAY..of course, one should ask, why not look at work done before and improve on the top of that?? Well, you cant. Why? Because they destroyed it (thats what they say, NASA creeps). There is not a one single blueprint of anything ever used there(moon), which could help engineers today to improve and build stuff which worked 50 years ago, but today is a problem, hence ORION radiation shield, heat shield tests, and so on(thats what they/NASA/ say)..so when you put all this things together, coupled with fraudster such as Elon, it all gets really interesting..and they want to go to Mars..ih..and if you would apply this concept of development on to car industry, we will be driving Ford T's only today, without one single clue, how to build it again..
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Steve Elliott on November 26, 2018, 09:46:54 AM
Quote
For long time rocket business has been in the hands of governments, and governments have budgets

It's not just about budgets, the Van Allen radiation belt problem has yet to be solved.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Madjack on November 26, 2018, 10:00:07 AM
Quote
Not at the moment. Regardless of if we been there or not. Not at least in a way that is usefull for future missions. Reason for this is obvious: We don't want to just visit there to play Moon ball, but to establish something long term. We can all agree that this haven't been done before, so there are lot of mundane technical issues to deal with (like how to eliminate the harmful effects of moon dust on machinery and humans etc. ) . We have the necessary rockets for heavy payloads in the form of Falcon heavy and this has been tested already.

..what is useful from past is that you have had bunch of blokes went there 6 times, radiation was not an issue, and yet, today they admitting that figuring out this problem(radiation) is critical not just for crew on board, but hardware as well, and they dont know how to sort it out TODAY..of course, one should ask, why not look at work done before and improve on the top of that?? Well, you cant. Why? Because they destroyed it (thats what they say, NASA creeps). There is not a one single blueprint of anything ever used there(moon), which could help engineers today to improve and build stuff which worked 50 years ago, but today is a problem, hence ORION radiation shield, heat shield tests, and so on(thats what they/NASA/ say)..so when you put all this things together, coupled with fraudster such as Elon, it all gets really interesting..and they want to go to Mars..ih..and if you would apply this concept of development on to car industry, we will be driving Ford T's only today, without one single clue, how to build it again..

I'd forgotten how much of a conspiracy theory enthusiast NA is.  ^-^
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1054183/posts
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: col on November 26, 2018, 01:55:18 PM
Quote
For long time rocket business has been in the hands of governments, and governments have budgets, formed of tax payers money, and hence subject to public scrutiny. If money is directed somewhere, it has to come from somewhere else. This is true even in North-Korea (minus the public scrutiny).

With limited funding you have to prioritize and focus on whats important at that time. Near orbital research was the thing in the 80's and 90's (Skylab, Mir, Hubble, Iss etc.). In 2000 > There has been many science based surveys (WMap, the mapping of the universe, Kepler telescope for exoplanets etc.). And now we have seen the rise of the private sector as well, which has been crucial since the public funding for space exploration has slightly been diminishing over the years.

You're on the right track there. Neil Degrasse Tyson sums it all up quite well...

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40YIIaF1qiw#t=22m30s (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40YIIaF1qiw#t=22m30s) up to just before the 37m00s mark, with an explanation starting at around 31m00s.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Henri on November 26, 2018, 09:10:12 PM
Quote
It's not just about budgets, the Van Allen radiation belt problem has yet to be solved.

Well, Van Allen belt is a problem, but not one that would prevent us from going beyond it as described in this article https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2017/06/16/astroquizzical-van-allen-belts-barrier-spaceflight/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2017/06/16/astroquizzical-van-allen-belts-barrier-spaceflight/). Earths magnetic field itself is not the issue, but wandering high energy protons and electrons ejected by the Sun that are trapped inside it.

If we want to go to the Moon, then this is a less of a problem, because best way to get there is to go on a relatively straight line, and this limits the exposure. If we want to go beyond that then the time is extended due to need to gather speed by going around the Earth, and then would be exposed longer.

So how to protect from this radiation ? To get some understanding, here is a simplified picture https://www.hko.gov.hk/education/cyber_exh_hall/eng/exhibit04_intro_eng.htm (https://www.hko.gov.hk/education/cyber_exh_hall/eng/exhibit04_intro_eng.htm). Remember that Van Allen belt has mostly ionized protons (inner belt) and electrons (outer belt). Also it's worth mentioning that heavier elements would give away x-ray radiation when hit by an electron, so it would not be a good idea to use lead as a protection, for example.

To put this all into perpective, Apollo astronauts were exposed inside the belt approximately 6 hours. During this time they received less radiation, then the rest of the voyage combined. Most exposure was probably due to cosmic radiation (originated from supernova explosions and other long distance phenomena). People are exposed to radiation on Earth too all the time.


And now...

*** RECENT MARS NEWS! ***

Insight-probe just landed successfully on the surface of Mars and sent it's first picture. See more online.


-Henri
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Steve Elliott on November 26, 2018, 09:46:59 PM
All this bullshit from some of you, yet the Space Industry has barely progressed since 1969 lol...Sending unmaned probes is not progress...Man has to be on board.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: MagosDomina on November 27, 2018, 01:57:07 AM
At the risk of long rant here.... Has anyone else found all the strange anomalies in the footage of the Apollo missions both interesting and spooky?

Specifically I will mention these few as an example:  On the later missions when they are walking on the moon you see the non-pressurized gloves opening on the seams. What about when they are supposedly orbiting the moon and instead they are sitting in the Lem with the lights out? Yet you can see the blue light from low earth orbit washing into the scene. The most compelling to me that we are seeing footage of the simulations missions is when the rover kicks up dust and it falls back down to the surface. Speeding up the footage to normal speed makes it look as it should on earth, on the moon wouldn't have the dust kept going?

I've seen compelling arguments on both sides. Personally I feel we went to the moon but we are not seeing the actual footage of what occurred. Now why is that you ask? Aliens.....

If they wanted to fake it they already had all they needed. people forget they built a full simulator and scale replica of the sea of tranquility to train on. Anything is possible when you have enough money and total control of the media. I'm also very suspicious of the Mars missions, Devon island with a filter looks pretty damn convincing if you ask me.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Naughty Alien on November 29, 2018, 01:18:11 AM
..well..im far from any conspiracy theory guy..actually, i care not for that...what triggers me is when i detect blatant lies and cheats and NASA&gang did it a lot in past...NASA claim that everything regarding Apollo is busted, including telemetry data and what not..literally, everything..then you hear nonsense about Mars..while they spending millions and millions on to figuring out radiation zones around earth (Orion project), to make sure humans are safe...i mean..WTF ??!! Then this baboon came and say this.



..then you see tons of NASA videos from ISS which shows such blatant CGI errors(while show is presented as a real time stream), that one wonder how really deep are going all lies they perpetuating and why..i can tell you one thing for sure, for 50+ mil USD a day, NASA should be doing much much better...just a bunch of liars, tricky liars as they mix lies with truth so its very hard to see trough all crap...

Just look at Curiosity rover sham and team leader and way he explain mission(he explains nothing literally)..and if you crack down data presented by them, about '7 min of terror', you start realizing how bad lie is..
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: therevills on November 29, 2018, 08:53:00 AM
..well..im far from any conspiracy theory guy..actually...

..then you see tons of NASA videos from ISS which shows such blatant CGI errors(while show is presented as a real time stream)....

....you start realizing how bad lie is..

WTF?!  ???
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Steve Elliott on November 29, 2018, 11:52:21 PM
Quote
I'd forgotten how much of a conspiracy theory enthusiast NA is.

There's a lot that doesn't add up here. Some people like to group people that believe the world is flat, in with anybody that believes the American's landed on the moon in the 60's for example.  Ofcourse the World is not flat.  But I do believe that the American's landing a man on the moon was fantasy and a propergander tool to beat the Soviet Union.  It never happened.  We could not do that with today's technology, let alone 60's technology.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Naughty Alien on November 30, 2018, 02:08:21 AM
..well..im far from any conspiracy theory guy..actually...

..then you see tons of NASA videos from ISS which shows such blatant CGI errors(while show is presented as a real time stream)....

....you start realizing how bad lie is..

WTF?!  ???

..cutting out parts of my post and forming it in to a something else, is not a way to go man..why would you do that..why not see rest of the words written attached to lines you have cut out?? Why taking things out of context ? And then ending whole thing with 'wtf' ?? Why ?
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: therevills on November 30, 2018, 08:32:23 AM
..cutting out parts of my post and forming it in to a something else, is not a way to go man..why would you do that..why not see rest of the words written attached to lines you have cut out?? Why taking things out of context ? And then ending whole thing with 'wtf' ?? Why ?

Sorry for cutting too much, but thought it still highlighted the issue with your post... you state you are not a conspiracy theory guy but then talk about CGI errors, if that isnt conspiracy talk I dont know what is.

I believe we went to the moon, the Apollo astronauts left a mirror on the moon which we use to measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: GaborD on November 30, 2018, 12:02:43 PM
I believe we went to the moon, the Apollo astronauts left a mirror on the moon which we use to measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon.

Yep, the lunar laser ranging retroreflector arrays. 3 of them actually, set up on three different Apollo missions (11, 14, 15)
Used by observatories all around the world.

Then again, a true conspiracy theorist will then tell you that the russians also have two reflectors, from their unmanned Luna missions with the Lunokhod rovers. So you don't necessarily need humans to do it.

To which you will reply "Yes, but those are just pre-mounted on the rovers, which lead to them having issues (one wasn't usable for decades, until re-found with the help of lunar reconnaissance orbiter images)."

And there is surely a clever comeback for that too...

And a clever comeback to the clever comeback...

And...

You can never win, there is always a step further one can take it down the rabbit hole.
The rabbit hole is turtles all the way down.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Henri on November 30, 2018, 08:59:02 PM
There is no need to argue about validity of Moon landings, because the issue would never be resolved.

Perhaps I can end this with a more lighter note  :)



-Henri
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: MagosDomina on December 02, 2018, 11:54:26 PM
You don't need mirrors on the moon to bounce a signal off of. Earth–Moon–Earth communication (EME), also known as moon bounce, is a radio communications technique that relies on the propagation of radio waves from an Earth-based transmitter directed via reflection from the surface of the Moon back to an Earth-based receiver. The technology to do this existed in the 1940's.

Now for some technical jargon:
Propagation time to the Moon and back ranges from 2.4 to 2.7 seconds, with an average of 2.56 seconds (distance from earth to the moon is 384,400 km).
The Moon is nearly spherical, and its radius corresponds to about 5.8 milliseconds of wave travel time. The trailing parts of an echo, reflected from irregular surface features near the edge of the lunar disk, are delayed from the leading edge by as much as twice this value.

If you want to read more about it just google it.

The method using mirrors might be a lot more accurate but when calculating distance, but also would allow for more precision calculations regarding rotation and studying the gravitational forces.

Nice video by the way, but the entire thing is still a rabbit hole for me. I'm doubtful if we will ever know the entire truth of it all.

People think computing was very primitive back in the 1960's. Then I show them this video...
Watch at 1:30 onward.


Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Qube on December 03, 2018, 12:04:19 AM
From this video (https://www.syntaxbomb.com/index.php/topic,5040.msg21187.html#msg21187) 'Astronaut' Don Pettit admits NASA can't return to the moon because they destroyed the technology?

So one of the most technological achievements of mankind was not preserved in any shape or form?. It was just randomly destroyed?. I'm not convinced either way if we went to the moon or not. It's a fascinating subject from both perspectives.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: MagosDomina on December 03, 2018, 12:13:23 AM
Here is an earlier video from 1963.

Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Naughty Alien on December 03, 2018, 01:19:16 AM
..NASA trickery is all over the place..almost every direction you take, from science part of what they claim, up to provided evidence(images and videos), its all full of issues..i mean, look at this official NASA 'shots' of mother earth..same object, same or almost same angle, huge huge difference..

(https://i.postimg.cc/TYKGGtMb/ballearth21.jpg)

..i mean..look at these and please dont tell me its okay...its totally NOT okay..but hey..NASA says its fine..

Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Madjack on December 03, 2018, 04:40:10 AM
..NASA trickery is all over the place..almost every direction you take, from science part of what they claim, up to provided evidence(images and videos), its all full of issues..i mean, look at this official NASA 'shots' of mother earth..same object, same or almost same angle, huge huge difference..

(https://i.postimg.cc/TYKGGtMb/ballearth21.jpg)

..i mean..look at these and please dont tell me its okay...its totally NOT okay..but hey..NASA says its fine..

Come on NA, even a moment's bit of googling would bring up the following about the 2012 image;
'The camera on board Suomi NPP can only photograph small sections of Earth at a time, so the image you see here is actually something of a mosaic'

About the 2002 image:
'Using a collection of satellite-based observations, scientists and visualizers stitched together months of observations of the land surface, oceans, sea ice, and clouds into a seamless, true-color mosaic of every square kilometer (.386 square mile) of our planet. These images are freely available to educators, scientists, museums, and the public.' (note there's two views of the globe available).

So you're comparing two photo mosaics created by different techniques, ten years apart.
I'm not surprised they look different - they could said to be 'illustrative' but it's hardly a conspiracy to deceive.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Naughty Alien on December 03, 2018, 05:33:49 AM
..well..if technique of image capture results with such effect that is of such scale/proportions distortion, how anything for that matter can be taken as a relevant from this people...still photographs 70+ years old doesnt show any particular difference worth mentioning in size/proportion compared to latest state of the art cameras we have today, yes ?? But when scientific stuff is concerned, which should be as precise and accurate as it can be, then tolerance of such magnitude where same continent is more than 2 times bigger on same surface, is okay...

Also, provided explanation tells one thing more..its not image captured but rather composed image, basically a CGI..either way, it screams inconsistency of a monumental proportions, just like north america size on this image..

Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: therevills on December 03, 2018, 07:54:00 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/TYKGGtMb/ballearth21.jpg)

..i mean..look at these and please dont tell me its okay...its totally NOT okay..but hey..NASA says its fine..

Sorry, you really need to try harder to convince me that NASA is making all this is up... where does it say that those two shots where taken at the same altitude to make a comparison statement etc, you are comparing apples and oranges.

(https://www.metabunk.org/sk/globe_comparison_with_distance.jpg)

OMG! America is huge in the first shot!  :P
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: therevills on December 03, 2018, 08:04:02 AM
From this video (https://www.syntaxbomb.com/index.php/topic,5040.msg21187.html#msg21187) 'Astronaut' Don Pettit admits NASA can't return to the moon because they destroyed the technology?

The technology is gone/old, but not the knowledge... it'll cost a bomb to rebuild and go back, that's where SpaceX comes in with reusable rockets :)
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: GaborD on December 03, 2018, 11:13:28 AM
Well, they did announce that they want to do new moon missions, with the help of private companies. A logical first step towards Mars.
 

Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Madjack on December 03, 2018, 11:40:37 AM
Well, they did announce that they want to do new moon missions, with the help of private companies. A logical first step towards Mars.

They've had the wind put up them by private ventures and possibly Chinese space developments and goals.

For decades its been cancelled projects and shifting priorities - its been almost seven years since the space shuttle undertook its last mission.

Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: peteswansen on December 04, 2018, 07:38:24 PM
just to be clear....."rockets" only boost payloads, satellites, and space vehicles-(capsules, orbital ships, and some day planet landing missions) out of the Earths gravity field.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: ThickO on December 04, 2018, 09:52:01 PM
I talked to a engineer that worked for NASA in the 60's, his job was the command  module. This was before polymers and graphite synthetic material. What is truly amazing is the the command module was milled from a single block of aluminum, that was the only way to assure no air leaks.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Rick Nasher on December 09, 2018, 12:26:29 PM
Quote
... But I do believe that the American's landing a man on the moon was fantasy and a propergander tool to beat the Soviet Union.  It never happened.  We could not do that with today's technology, let alone 60's technology.

- If so, the Russians would have made sooo much noise shouting 'fake news'(they were close observers).
But instead, they were pretty upset they didn't make it there first.

Or.. it's all a conspiracy, big scam:
The earth indeed is flat,  there are aliens ruling us, we're in a simulation or.. well, have your pick.
Big problem with all of those explanations is always: *why?* - The answers almost never make solid sense, don't hold up if you continue thinking ahead.



- Old tech isn't completely 'destroyed'. It hasn't been kept up to date, abandoned and unusable under todays demands for safety and most likely too costly(the 60's/early 70's were a pretty prosperous time to live in, money to spare).

Also mind you Kennedy didn't exactly give them much time too(1 decade to beat the Ruskies) and the rocket was the biggest ever build under Wernher von Braun, who was pretty much ahead of his time.


I've yet too see compelling evidence for this one that cannot be explained otherwise.
















Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: RemiD on December 09, 2018, 05:43:28 PM
you have to consider that, in the past, some people invented / built new technologies from scratch, with parts often manually made, and some were skilled in different fields, also there was less entertainment, more discipline and focus on work, so i am not surprised that many engineers of today are more "users" and "assemblers" than "inventors" and "creators".

i am personally trying to replicate a few "lost" technologies, and sometimes i have difficulties to understand what some past inventors meant / did and why. and sometimes i search for answers on the web and i find nothing about it (and i am far from a genius...)

and yes, some old technologies were voluntarily destroyed, or at least forgotten (because of lobbies and rules / taxes / obstacles from the state)
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Rick Nasher on December 09, 2018, 07:11:48 PM
That might very well be true.

People of today having issues imagining how primitive structures were build. Old but even fairly recently creations, like 100 years ago. So with complex stuff like space tech might indeed be the case.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on December 24, 2018, 12:28:38 AM
I believe we went to the moon, the Apollo astronauts left a mirror on the moon which we use to measure the distance between the Earth and the Moon.

Yep, the lunar laser ranging retroreflector arrays. 3 of them actually, set up on three different Apollo missions (11, 14, 15)
Used by observatories all around the world.

Then again, a true conspiracy theorist will then tell you that the russians also have two reflectors, from their unmanned Luna missions with the Lunokhod rovers. So you don't necessarily need humans to do it.

To which you will reply "Yes, but those are just pre-mounted on the rovers, which lead to them having issues (one wasn't usable for decades, until re-found with the help of lunar reconnaissance orbiter images)."

And there is surely a clever comeback for that too...

And a clever comeback to the clever comeback...

And...

You can never win, there is always a step further one can take it down the rabbit hole.
The rabbit hole is turtles all the way down.

physics grad checking in.
the mirrors on the moon \ laser ranging is for some reason the favourite pub debate 'proof' story that the meris went to the moon.
its bollocks. its totally impractical to bounce a laser off a 1m^2 mirror 3840,000km away moving at 1km/s.

1. Ever held a laser and bounced it off a mirror some distance away? notice how the returned laser dot shakes around alot? The distance magnifies the trembles of your hand. To bounce a laser off a handheld mirror more than 20m away is impractical. Try doing it with a moving target. Now consider that both the moon and the Earth are constantly trembling with quakes. This makes it impractical for even the best tech to line up a perfect laser to a moon mirror such that it would bounce back to earth.

2. 'perfect laser' is pertinent. because lasers aren't perfect. their light spreads out. any laser we've got will spread out by the time it got to the moon to cover all the moon. And this gives u a clue as to how lunar laser ranging works and why it was operational 7 year b4 the merifats alledged they went to the moon. Lunar laser ranging works by bouncing lasers off the whole of the moon, then waiting for some of the light to get back to Earth.
Don't need mirrors, and a 1m^2 mirror would be worthless for such a task anyway. We can't even see 1m^2 resolution on the moon let alone point to something with that resolution.

i've been in pubs when non-scientists have told me with 100% conviction and serious tone that its proven that we went to the moon because 'lasers bounced off mirrors on the moon' . They've not got a **** clue what they are talking about, and can't even use google.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Rick Nasher on December 24, 2018, 07:39:22 PM
@meems
Now there's an interesting point of view.

I know lasers do spread out, but I checked wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment) and they say:

Quote
Principle[edit]

The distance to the Moon is calculated approximately using this equation:

distance = (speed of light × time taken for light to reflect) / 2

In actuality, the round-trip time of about 2.5 seconds is affected by the location of the Moon in the sky, the relative motion of Earth and the Moon, Earth's rotation, lunar libration, weather, polar motion, propagation delay through Earth's atmosphere, the motion of the observing station due to crustal motion and tides, velocity of light in various parts of air and relativistic effects.[9] Nonetheless, the Earth–Moon distance has been measured with increasing accuracy for more than 35 years. The distance continually changes for a number of reasons, but averages 385,000.6 km (239,228.3 mi).[10]

At the Moon's surface, the beam is about 6.5 kilometers (4.0 mi) wide[11] and scientists liken the task of aiming the beam to using a rifle to hit a moving dime 3 kilometers (1.9 mi) away. The reflected light is too weak to see with the human eye. Out of 1017 photons aimed at the reflector, only one is received back on Earth every few seconds, even under good conditions. They can be identified as originating from the laser because the laser is highly monochromatic. This is one of the most precise distance measurements ever made, and is equivalent in accuracy to determining the distance between Los Angeles and New York to 0.25 mm (0.01 in).[8][12] As of 2002, work is progressing on increasing the accuracy of the Earth–Moon measurements to near millimeter accuracy, though the performance of the reflectors continues to degrade with age.[8] The upcoming MoonLIGHT reflector, that will be landed in 2019, is designed to increase measurement accuracy 100 times over existing systems.[2][13]


Now I can't claim to be a scientist so I do not have the means to check if this is in any way feasible.

China also claims to have done this:
China just bounced a laser off reflectors on the Moon placed by NASA's Apollo 15 mission (https://gbtimes.com/china-just-bounced-a-laser-off-reflectors-on-the-moon-placed-by-nasas-apollo-15-mission)


So either we're being lied to or your understanding of the laser tech is not up to par with NASA's.
I know in the late 80's guys at my ICT school were pointing, by hand, self build lasers which were 2meters long at the time, at flying pigeons to blind them and see them crash fall from the sky(nasty f-ers, even though I can see the comic element in it). :-\

Thus question is: What is your knowledge based upon? What's your education? Selftought? Did you experiment with lasers? Etc, etc.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Steve Elliott on December 24, 2018, 08:15:23 PM
Knowledge?  He said he was a physics graduate.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on December 24, 2018, 08:28:02 PM
physics graduate, common sense, a lifelong interest in physics, and having a skeptical mind.

ok so good lasers now are only 6.5km wide at the moon's surface. It's a modest gain over the method of using multiple lower grade lasers to create a higher intensity, lower coherence beam.

common sense says if u shine a light on a reflective surface then u can see it, and for the purpose of timing light thats good enough. It isn't necessary that the beam is mirrored back.
Thast's why they could do lunar laser ranging in 1962.

Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on December 24, 2018, 08:32:22 PM
Adding mirrors actually won't make a detectable difference. There's a paper written by a top mathematician\phyicist that goes thru the precise details to show mirrors of the size claimed by nasa won't make a discernible difference to the detected number of reflected photons.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Rick Nasher on December 25, 2018, 02:42:15 AM
Ok, so what you're saying is that the whole mirror thing is unnecessary and useless in in any case.

I wonder then what geniuses thought it was a good idea to spent the extra bucks and put them up there while is of no use anyway? Shouldn't they all be fired for that? I mean, surely not cheap to put anything up there to say the least.

You'd expect the best of scientists to be working at NASA or the Russians and then to make such a mistake is just weird. Didn't they do the math?
 
Unless.. the moons surface isn't reflective enough due to the sun outshining just about any laser hitting it's dusty surface?
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: 3DzForMe on December 25, 2018, 06:04:25 AM
@Remid, 20 years ago (I know.... That's almost distinctly in the past), I invented my own bicycle speed comparator with reed switches, magnets, a C90 cassette, a 3khz tone generator, and my own a to d converter using as schmitt trigger - and the graph software was written in Amigas blitz basic. Of course, there wasn't the distraction s of Grid Autosport with force feedback steering wheels then.... So not sure If would've made the leap from assembler to inventor these days. Nevertheless, my Blitzplotting carries on within Blitz3D, admittedly using Garmin's bespoke hardware to capture data instead of my own. The question is, how hard would it be to make my own GPS data capturing device with programmable chips and blah.... Maybe a little Project for next year.... Merry Christmas folks, and happy coding fellow nerds and geeks  :P
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on December 27, 2018, 06:03:09 PM
Ok, so what you're saying is that the whole mirror thing is unnecessary and useless in in any case.

I wonder then what geniuses thought it was a good idea to spent the extra bucks and put them up there while is of no use anyway? Shouldn't they all be fired for that? I mean, surely not cheap to put anything up there to say the least.

You'd expect the best of scientists to be working at NASA or the Russians and then to make such a mistake is just weird. Didn't they do the math?
 
Unless.. the moons surface isn't reflective enough due to the sun outshining just about any laser hitting it's dusty surface?
well its a 'pub proof' that the meris went the moon. But its hopelessly flawed and so is just a demo of how normies can't do logic and reason, yet have conviction in what they don't understand ( blind faith ) as much as any religious zealot. Belief in mass media myths is religion repackaged, with a bonus : Religion is even more powerful when the follower doesn't realise he's a devout believer in said religion.

>Didn't they do the math?
the meris didn't go to the moon, it was all stagecraft, so no one had to do the maths.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Rick Nasher on December 27, 2018, 11:24:53 PM
@meems

Ok, I can agree that without enough knowledge it's pretty difficult to pull the correct conclusions and probably stupid too.

Quote
>Didn't they do the math?
the meris didn't go to the moon, it was all stagecraft, so no one had to do the maths.

If staged. How would the Americans have gotten away with their claims while those pesky Ruskies were watching their each and every move during the cold war?

For that to work the Russians - their so called "No.1 enemy" at the time, were in on this too then? We are governed by aliens who put up a big show for us with wars killing lots of people just to make it plausible(dunno why though, what would be the point?). Is the earth flat, space don't exists? Or: we're living in a sim? Is this the Matrix? - The human battery theory I heard some people strongly believe in didn't make any sense to me. I'm looking for a good reason here.

Not saying there can't be any other explainations, open to all ideas, if at least the arguments for the 'why' are making sense. So far haven't heard a good one yet.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: 3DzForMe on December 28, 2018, 05:49:53 AM
Quote
Not saying there can't be any other explainations, open to all ideas, if at least the arguments for the 'why' are making sense. So far haven't heard a good one yet.

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.....
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on December 28, 2018, 12:36:11 PM
>If staged. How would the Americans have gotten away with their claims while those pesky Ruskies were watching their each and every move during the cold war?

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'.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Rick Nasher 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?


Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems 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.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Steve Elliott on December 28, 2018, 11:14:38 PM
lol  ;D
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: therevills on December 29, 2018, 01:18:03 AM
lol  ;D

Yep - LOL!
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Rick Nasher 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  ;)



Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: MagosDomina 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.

Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: therevills 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...
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: MagosDomina 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...
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems 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.




Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Naughty Alien 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..

Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Madjack 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?
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Naughty Alien 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??
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Matty 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.

Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Naughty Alien 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). 
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Rick Nasher 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?

Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Rick Nasher on January 02, 2019, 11:40:15 AM
Interesting read and also a nice NASA before mission 1960's 'CGI' promo:
http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/nasas-lunar-module-everything-you-need-to-know.html

Also about the thickness:
https://www.quora.com/How-thick-were-the-walls-of-the-command-modules-used-in-the-Apollo-program

https://www.quora.com/How-thin-were-the-walls-of-the-Apollo-Lunar-Lander
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on January 02, 2019, 12:49:49 PM
>... sustain stress equal of 9 to 12 asian elephants standing on that suit unwrapped.

Its a bit misleading to think of it that way. A better way to think of the pressure difference of space vs sea level vs a car tyre. As it happens,
 space vs sea level is about the same as sea level vs car tyre, about 15PSI
 roughly,
 space = 0 psi
 sea level = 15 psi
 car tyre = 30 psi

so a space suit needs to be as pressure sturdy as a car tyre. That is within reason. Car tyres have a lot of redundant capacity : the exploding ones on youtube are at about 200 PSI.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Henri on January 02, 2019, 02:02:50 PM
I think that the tire analogy is appropriate, as it seems, according to wikipedia, early pressure suits were developed in tire companies like BFGoodrich and Goodyear.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_suit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure_suit)

Trivia:  U-2 spy planes operational altitude was roughly 20 km. Atmospheric pressure is less than 1/10 at that level (http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/prs/hght.rxml (http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/prs/hght.rxml)).

-Henri

Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Naughty Alien on January 03, 2019, 08:02:29 AM
..and here they are, ISS gang...on the wires...

Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: GaborD on January 03, 2019, 08:34:54 AM
This thread is going places.   :P


Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: therevills on January 03, 2019, 09:16:28 AM
..and here they are, ISS gang...on the wires...

Oh please don't say you believe tripe in that video...
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on January 03, 2019, 01:06:42 PM
@therevills
>Oh please don't say you believe tripe in that video...
nothing says " i refuse to watch it, so I'm not in a position to judge it " more than comments like yours

I love how the nasa hoax conspiracy has split online communities. Any hobby or work forum has for and against. Some forum ban one side, some the other, some forums ban discussion of it altogether.
Either you're skeptically minded or not, the nasa hoax is a good test. We all grew up with 100% belief that what the TV box told us was true. It takes a special resource of mind to be able to go back and question and potentially reject bedrock beliefs that were instilled in us at a young age.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: ThickO on January 03, 2019, 09:05:26 PM
Here you go !!  ;D
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: therevills on January 03, 2019, 10:50:49 PM
@therevills
>Oh please don't say you believe tripe in that video...
nothing says " i refuse to watch it, so I'm not in a position to judge it " more than comments like yours

I did watch it fully and I judged it tripe... so dont assume I refused to watch it.

I am for questioning everything, that is one of the basics of good science but there is a line of what/who you believe and the conspiracy theories out there.

In more proper science news, the Chinese Chang'E 4 landed on the "dark" side of the moon:

(https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/10683500-3x2-700x467.jpg)

(https://www.abc.net.au/news/image/10684022-3x2-700x467.jpg)

And a video of the Chang'E 3 from 2013:

Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Xerra on January 03, 2019, 11:13:33 PM
And, in other exciting space-related news, we also got our most detailed image yet of Ultima Thule which has been flying around the Kuiper belt for the last 8 million years or so. New Horizons flew over it, at around 17,000 miles, on New years day. It's so far out now that it's going to take around 18 months to receive all the data from the fly-by.

The data from the Pluto fly-by in 2015 took around 15 months to receive it all when it flew over in 2015.

Ultima Thule has topically been nicknamed the Snowman as it's two objects that collided and stuck together thousands of years ago.

Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Steve Elliott on January 03, 2019, 11:16:07 PM
Why didn't the Chinese send men there?  Oh yes.   ;D
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Henri on January 04, 2019, 07:58:30 AM
Quote
Why didn't the Chinese send men there?

They are planning to. But so are others.

There is at least one commercial reason to go there and that's the abundance of helium-3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3) .
Helium-3 is the best candidate to be used as a fuel for a fusion reactor.

One is currently been built in France https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER) .

-Henri
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on January 04, 2019, 12:35:32 PM
Quote
In more proper science news, the Chinese Chang'E 4 landed on the "dark" side of the moon:
Those orange photos can be immediately ID'ed as stage productions. There is fall off areas to the side of the photos - less bright on the sides of the set, a clear cut sign of stagelighting that all college educated stagecraft people spot instantly but top physicists are often blind to. If it was sunlight there'd be no fall off areas. Also the 2nd photo has a distinct 'hot spot ' a brighter lit patch in the middle of the set which indicates a stage light is pointing at it.

The apollo photos were replete with these stagelight artifacts, with fall off and hotspot areas in most of the photos. Believers cooked up all manner of excuses, most usually offshot astronauts and artifacts acting as light sources and when all else fails they just say ' light acts in unknown ways on the moon' .

can u see the hotspot and fall off areas in the classic 'man on the moon' photo?
(http://ctbythenumbers.info/files/2012/07/moon_astronaut_armstrong_spacesuit_apollo_11_desktop_1680x1050_hd-wallpaper-31277.jpg)
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: therevills on January 04, 2019, 10:52:26 PM
So the Chinese are also included in the conspiracy too?!?  ;D

If it was sunlight there'd be no fall off areas. Also the 2nd photo has a distinct 'hot spot ' a brighter lit patch in the middle of the set which indicates a stage light is pointing at it.

It looks to me that the photo was taken at night on the moon and the spot light is coming from a light mounted on the lander itself...

Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on January 05, 2019, 12:01:30 AM
>It looks to me that the photo was taken at night on the moon and the spot light is coming from a light mounted on the lander itself...

Exactly!  ;)
Buzz and Neil were alleged to on the surface for only 125 minutes for that 1969 mission. The whole of that 125 minutes was alleged to be in lunar daytime. But the photos tell a different story...
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Flanker on January 05, 2019, 12:48:35 AM
can u see the hotspot and fall off areas in the classic 'man on the moon' photo?

This is not the original picture from NASA. There is a gallery with most original pictures from Apollo missions indexed by missions and film rolls (http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html (http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html)), linking to HQ pictures on NASA servers with additionnal informations, it's the best way to find the original pictures. Here is yours with no funky color correction (and no fall off...) : https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg (https://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg)

And for the chinese picture, the "hotspot" is just a reflection from the sun on the golden insulation material, throught the gap beetween the body and the left solar panel. The exact same thing happened with the previous rover (Chang'e 3, check yourself).
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: therevills on January 05, 2019, 01:53:02 AM
>It looks to me that the photo was taken at night on the moon and the spot light is coming from a light mounted on the lander itself...

Exactly!  ;)

I was referring to the Chang'E 4 photo.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: therevills on January 05, 2019, 02:42:04 AM
And in SpaceX news they have been building a Stainless Steel "Starship"...

(https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Starship-Alpha-Boca-Chica-construction-122318-Elon-Musk-2.jpg)

https://www.universetoday.com/141002/prototype-version-of-the-spacex-starship-with-a-stainless-steel-skin-is-under-construction/
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on January 05, 2019, 05:43:36 AM
>I was referring to the Chang'E 4 photo.
> hills over a mile away well lit
Of course, in your mind you'd naturally assume the Chang E carried the most powerful flood light by a factor of x100 to its nearest rival.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on January 05, 2019, 06:09:36 AM
>This is not the original picture from NASA. There is a gallery with most original pictures from Apollo missions indexed by missions and film rolls

You've entered the hall of mirrors. One of the photos is the original from 1969, the other is recently modified to serve a purpose. If nasa are hoaxers and they become aware one of their key photos is being used successfully to show apollo was a hoax, do you think they'll keep it the same?
For believers, their confirmation bias will stop them looking beyound nasa's webpage. But for anyone who wants to use logic rather than authority to decide which one is the original, consider this : why is the 'dark' one the one used by other websites? I don't mean apollo hoax websites, I mean nearly all other mainstream sites that support nasa, they use the dark man on the moon photo.
Ans : because that was the official photo until about 2016, the bright one is the new, photoshopped one.
Otherwise you have to believe that anti nasa people have been very active and persuasive in spreading the dark one to groups such as national geographic.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/jul20/man-walks-moon/
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on January 05, 2019, 06:22:49 AM
>And for the chinese picture, the "hotspot" is just a reflection from the sun on the golden insulation material
(https://i.imgur.com/wPGFyji.png)
You're guessing incorrectly what a studio set hotspot is. Its the area of lit stage that contains the object of interest, typically in the foreground, centre stage, the stage lights will point at the object.
Here's the contrast between hotspot and fall off areas
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Kryzon on January 05, 2019, 08:53:42 AM
Meems, there have been pictures taken of the moon that show astronaut tracks and american flags. That'd be quite an elaborate hoax, going to the moon to put a flag there, to prove that you went to the moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Imaging_the_landing_sites (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories#Imaging_the_landing_sites)

How's that for falsifiable, empiric evidence.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on January 05, 2019, 09:47:27 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/DKNcdzM.png)
A few hazy pixels. Weak either way.

The mountain of evidence : the apollo photos and videos taken in-situ goes straight in your bin?  wow u really have confidence apollo was for real. not.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Kryzon on January 06, 2019, 05:26:23 AM
I don't think it's about confidence -- or belief -- that it was for real. It's about being able to look at the moon and see the evidence over there. 
Just like someone can go to Egypt and see the pyramids -- most of us have only seen photos of them after all. If you believe the pyramids really exist, without having seen them for real, then you're being biased against humans landing on the moon.

In the meantime, let's wait for higher res cameras  :D
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on January 06, 2019, 06:42:00 AM
>Just like someone can go to Egypt and see the pyramids
Not really. It makes sense to me that people can go there. Also we have good photos and vids of them that don't look fake.

>let's wait for higher res cameras
> implying that since the cameras in 1969-72 weren't 20 MegaPixel, or 8K movie, then they weren't good enough


erm, so what I sarcastically said about you dismissing the entire apollo footage and photo archive... is correct? Yet you'll rest on seeing that C64-esk 30x30 formless blob. Hmm, are you a 100% believer in nasa and apollo, or do you entertain doubts?
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Kryzon on January 06, 2019, 07:03:47 AM
I'm implying that a higher res camera would remove all doubt over the 30x30 formless blob, like being able to see a footprint for example.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on January 06, 2019, 08:18:56 AM
>I'm implying that a higher res camera would remove all doubt over the 30x30 formless blob, like being able to see a footprint for example

ok. so the '69~72 apollo photos and footage qualify for inspection and analysis?
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Flanker on January 06, 2019, 12:20:33 PM
Ans : because that was the official photo until about 2016, the bright one is the new, photoshopped one.
Otherwise you have to believe that anti nasa people have been very active and persuasive in spreading the dark one to groups such as national geographic.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/thisday/jul20/man-walks-moon/

You might be right, I've checked several magazine covers from 1969 with this picture, and all of them show a significant light fall off. However national geographic was already the one using the darker image. But now, how do you explain that in the same magazines from 1969, they show others pictures with no light fall off ?

You're guessing incorrectly what a studio set hotspot is.

English is not my native langage, I though you talked about the light reflection on the ground. There are portions on the distant moutains that are as brigh as the foreground... It's just that the ground is not uniform.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on January 06, 2019, 05:47:19 PM
>the same magazines from 1969, they show others pictures with no light fall off ?

Dunno. Perhaps some of the shots were done with Stanley overseeing them. Some of them were done without him hence they're amateur ones, easily spotted as stage photos.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Henri on January 06, 2019, 07:01:55 PM
I have an alternative theory: Perhaps the darker image that appeared in the magazine cover was slightly edited for more dramatic effect. Publications want to sell right ?

-Henri
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on January 08, 2019, 09:49:24 PM
>I have an alternative theory: Perhaps the darker image that appeared in the magazine cover was slightly edited for more dramatic effect. Publications want to sell right ?

That's a new one. By that theory there should be a paper trail of cover photos that are darker than the originals.

Anyway, you can move onto level 2. The high angle. The cameras were fixed to the actors chests. So how has this photo got a view of the top the actors helmet? The hasleblad cameras had crosses on them, with a big central cross in the middle. The middle cross is at the actors lower leg, indicating that the camera was pointing down, from a height of about 7 feet.

>So the photographer was in mid jump!

...is one I've heard b4. Except the photographer seems to appear in the helmet reflection, and he's stood on the ground.

>So the photographer was stood on higher ground!

Good luck trying to find the higher ground near the alleged 1969 landing site. No-ones found it yet.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Flanker on January 08, 2019, 11:46:25 PM
Anyway, you can move onto level 2. The high angle. The cameras were fixed to the actors chests. So how has this photo got a view of the top the actors helmet? The hasleblad cameras had crosses on them, with a big central cross in the middle. The middle cross is at the actors lower leg, indicating that the camera was pointing down, from a height of about 7 feet.

Astronauts were leaning forward to counter-balance the weight of their portable life support system (PLSS). It weights around 38kg on Earth, that's only 6.4kg on the Moon but as the astronauts are lighter too on the Moon, the weight distribution stays the same and they had to lean forward not to fall.

I have two questions for you then :
- Landing men on the Moon requires hundreds if not thousands of people working together (and billions of dollars). Are they part of the hoax or did "they" (who ?) fooled them ? Where is the money ?
- Why didn't the soviets reveal the hoax ? They probably had enough space tech to know wether the USA landed on the Moon or not because they were trying to get there first. It would have been perfect for their propaganda to prove that USA faked the Moon landing...
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on January 09, 2019, 07:22:06 AM
>Astronauts were leaning forward to counter-balance the weight of their portable life support system (PLSS).

Good, well without quantitative analysis, I don't see a way to refute your explanation. Just seems odd to take a portrait photo by pointing chest height camera at lower leg.

>- Landing men on the Moon requires hundreds if not thousands of people working together (and billions of dollars). Are they part of the hoax or did "they" (who ?) fooled them ?
That old chestnut. Global Warming alarmists say the same thing. How can all these people conspire - like as soon as they're out of public view they start grinning conspiratorially and chuckling to each other about how they've fooled the public one more day. The reality is, individuals working for the system could not see the whole, so could not assess it. They were given a niche job and agreed to keep quiet and not ask questions ( apollo was confidential \ non-disclosure ). There were lots of drills, some of which the workers didn't know were drills until after the event. The computer operators didn't know if the data they were receiving was from space or from a rehearsal, and after 100 drills they wouldn't even be trying to discern.
The people making the models thought they were doing it so the actors could practice for the real thing. They were told the real thing was being made elsewhere at a secret location.

People often have a naive view of conspiracies. They seem to think that anyone involved in a conspiracy knows exactly what they are doing, looks like a criminal, and at any moment is trying not to laugh like a evil mastermind or looks guilty as sin. The reality is most people haven't a clue they are involved in one. Only a very few people at the top know whats going on. Whistleblowers are dismissed as nutters and are ignored, they also lose their well paid jobs. - This tends to influence the others with families and mortgages to not ask questions, and instead just get on with the work they've been given.

>Where is the money ?
In the pockets of the US industry base. Apollo was taxpayer funded. These days the apollo hoax still pays dividends : when a rich group e.g. saudis want a satellite they hand a quarter of a billion over to western companies.

- Why didn't the soviets reveal the hoax ?
I can see this the 1st time you've thought about this. We get these questions all the time. The idea that the soviets held a magic card, like all it took was one soviet to stand up and say " i think apollo is a hoax, here's a piece of paper with some writing on that says i'm right " at which point the entire western media and public rally behind this call, and the apollo people hold up their arms in a surrender and say " you're right, well we fooled you up till now, but its all over " and didn't go back to work the next day, is naive.
The cold war era soviets always decried what the US was doing. The western media didn't listen. It was constant, just like the UK parliament, one side has an idea, the other side opposes it and says its money purposely flushed away which amounts to a conspiracy against the taxpayer. Instead spending a decade of decrying and being ignored, they decided to fake it too.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Kryzon on January 09, 2019, 06:49:48 PM
> when a rich group e.g. saudis want a satellite

So you don't trust any evidence that the moon landing was real (photos, videos, depositions), but you do trust that such a thing as a satellite (an electronic device floating around the earth) does exist, when nobody cared to gather evidence that satellites are indeed real.

Got it. So the next time someone goes to the moon, all they have to do is not show any evidence, otherwise your contrarian feelings will kick in and you'll start going "hmm, you're trying too hard to make me believe you, therefore I will not".
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on January 09, 2019, 09:31:50 PM
I'm one of the poor people who graduated in physics, and have kept it going as a hobby all my life. It gives a better idea of what is achievable.

>an electronic device floating around the earth
Its really not that hard to float around the Earth. The moon does it without even trying.

>trust
Why resort to that? Why not discern truth from fiction using your intellect?
If someone's got a good reason for satellites being fiction then let me know.

>Satellites.
While they exist and are modestly useful, they, or the public image of them are often used as a big con. Remember sky1 the TV channel? In the 1980s and 1990s the dumb public believed they were receiving TV signals from a satellite. Complete nonsense, but it sure sold a lot of SkyTV licenses, people who believed crap about TV signals were paying to watch crap TV signals.  :)
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: therevills on January 09, 2019, 09:53:05 PM
We get these questions all the time.

LOL! We?!?

I'm one of the poor people who graduated in physics, and have kept it going as a hobby all my life. It gives a better idea of what is achievable.

Lot's of people study and graduated in physics, including myself... and doing it for a hobby really doesn't mean you know everything...

>Satellites.
In the 1980s and 1990s the dumb public believed they were receiving TV signals from a satellite.
What do you think they were using then?! From my knowledge they were using the Astra satellites...
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on January 09, 2019, 10:36:10 PM
> doing it for a hobby really doesn't mean you know everything...

>know everything...
> have a opinion different to normal people

Can u spot the difference here?

>What do you think they were using then?
Same thing we use today : good old fashioned ground based radio broadcast transmitters. Some people still fancy those mock radar dishes and a picture of a satellite in space on a cardboard box that the radio receiver comes in, so the satellite TV myth endures to this day.
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: therevills on January 09, 2019, 10:58:50 PM
> have a opinion different to normal people[/i]

Well we can confirm you are far from normal :)

so the satellite TV myth endures to this day.

Proof?
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Madjack on January 10, 2019, 02:35:16 AM
Quote
Global Warming alarmists say the same thing.

And of course he's a climate change denier as well. ::)
Can we go for the trifecta meems?
Is the earth round or flat?
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on January 10, 2019, 02:52:13 AM
>so the satellite TV myth endures to this day.
>proof?

(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/4b/d8/68/4bd868319b58b9dfa23b13b3cad8ee79.jpg?fbclid=IwAR0wXPOl-eMfIlKRovmxDgf5wMvSt1NmTpwUKU8qk6tJW3BSjm6k9PyiLDk)

>Is the earth round or flat?
Round of course. Confess your sins, what else beside wasting electricity on this net forum have you done to contribute to the day when the air sets on fire due to AGW and becomes another Venus?
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: meems on January 10, 2019, 02:58:37 AM
duplicate
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: GaborD on January 10, 2019, 04:49:31 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/xcTuSJq.jpg)
Title: Re: Mars: Inside SpaceX
Post by: Qube on January 10, 2019, 01:37:17 PM
I think we're all experts on this now ;D - time to get your tin foil hats out and move on to the next conspiracy.