We put a man on the moon?

shizz · 20-03-2012 9:13pm

44leto wrote: »

Ohh right I think I may have been at the USA amazon.

I apologies, my link was to an older edition.

120_Minutes · 20-03-2012 9:39pm

I'm fairly tolerant if people have different beliefs to my own, you know.... god, abortion, the whole gay marriage thing. but when i meet people who utterly believe man didnt walk on the moon, i want to slap them upside the head and do this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u613pJSLcfk

baalthor · 20-03-2012 9:48pm

Man landing on Mars won't be faked anyway ...

The way Hollywood is going it will be cheaper to really send someone there than than to simulate it in a movie studio :-)

44leto · 20-03-2012 9:50pm

120_Minutes wrote: »

I'm fairly tolerant if people have different beliefs to my own, you know.... god, abortion, the whole gay marriage thing. but when i meet people who utterly believe man didnt walk on the moon, i want to slap them upside the head and do this:

I know they are complete and utter morons, they give conspiracy theorists a bad name. Its actually easier to believe they went to the moon. Another group that get my goat are the Holocaust deniers, you don't even have to have an archaeology dig for the evidence, the documentation, some of the camps, and survivors and perpetrators are still alive.

Rabidlamb · 20-03-2012 9:51pm

I wonder if the Chinese would be mad enough to launch a one way mission.

LuckyLloyd · 20-03-2012 10:44pm

Flight time to Mars would be 8 months or so, yeah?

Feathers · 20-03-2012 10:52pm

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

Is it true that the computer they used to go to the moon was something like a 64 GB type thing? If that's true, that's pretty nuts.

Yeah supposedly there's more computational power in my mobile phone that the entire Apollo 11 equipment — every time I hear people say that I feel like they're implying that I've done very little with my wonderful technology, but they don't seem to understand that I'm missing my team of aeronautical/astrophysics experts & millions of pounds.

Capt'n Midnight · 20-03-2012 11:16pm

KilOit wrote: »

Generation ship would be useless now unless we up our tech greatly,

we wouldn't be launching any ships until we can live amongst the asteroids for a while

also take in the fact that technology will increase a lot while the poor suckers on the first generation ship are on their way, another one could be built couple hundred years after the first one launched and arrive in a fraction of time, an entire civilization could be on the target planet by the time the first one arrives. we need to do it in a time frame of 100-200 years before evening bothering launching generation ships

the ships will be self sufficient and we can beam them the plans
by the end of this year we should have figured out if the Higgs Boson exists which will rule in or out different technologies and the likelyhood of them

we are waiting for fusion because we believe it's largely an engineering problem ( and it produces hemiu
the next step up is antimatter, but that's extremely unlikely any time soon

so we could plan for generation ships using fusion / plasma or giant solar solar sails and ginormous lasers, we could launch now and the lads could hope we make better lasers to speed them up

Capt'n Midnight · 20-03-2012 11:22pm

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Flight time to Mars would be 8 months or so, yeah?

A Hoffman transfer orbit minimises fuel.
But you have to supply astronauts with food and air so it might be more economic to burn fuel to get them there faster.

Plasma is win win here, you can use the solar panels for other stuff, use waste as reactant mass. Possibly you can use the plasma to protect from coronal mass ejections ? As long as there are no neutrons or uncharged particles.

shizz · 20-03-2012 11:47pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

A Hoffman transfer orbit minimises fuel.
But you have to supply astronauts with food and air so it might be more economic to burn fuel to get them there faster.

Plasma is win win here, you can use the solar panels for other stuff, use waste as reactant mass. Possibly you can use the plasma to protect from coronal mass ejections ? As long as there are no neutrons or uncharged particles.

I like the look of Gas Core Nuclear Rockets. They have a specific impulse in the thousands so they promise a chance at a sort of "Point and shoot" mission to Mars. On what I've read of them, they show the possibility of a round trip in about 9 months with a 30 to 60 day stay on Mars.

Not sure what the research has been done into them or how feasible the design is though.

Capt'n Midnight · 20-03-2012 11:48pm

baalthor wrote: »

Man landing on Mars won't be faked anyway ...

The way Hollywood is going it will be cheaper to really send someone there than than to simulate it in a movie studio :-)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/

JupiterKid · 21-03-2012 5:04am

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Robotic exploration comes at a fraction of the price and no risk to humans. You could probably land robotic vehicles on every solid planet in the solar system for the cost of a manned mission to Mars (complete guess).

Sending men to Mars would be a prestige thing.

A manned Mars mission would be a multiple of the cost of a robotic lander on every solid planet in the solar system (with the possible exception of Pluto). It would probably be close to $500 billion+ and for that reason will have to be an international effort.

I can't stand the "we never landed on the moon" conspiracy theory idiots.

JupiterKid · 21-03-2012 5:11am

Sky King wrote: »

At night though. Obv.Would be deadly to have spent that money on a project to see if there's life on Europa or Enceladus

It simply would not have been possible. Back in 1969 when Apollo 11 took place, unmanned probes had only reached Mars and Venus and, even at that, the data that the early Mariner and Venera probes sent back were crude and limited. Absolutely nothing was known about Europa, Enceladus or any of the moons of the outer planets apart from their rough masses, approximate sizes and orbital periods. They were believed to be completely dead, cratered ice balls, Io (which we now know to be extremely volcanic) included.

Jupiter takes 2 to 4 years to reach from Earth and was only visited for the first time by an unmanned probe (Pioneer 10) in 1973. At such a vast distance, Pioneer wasn't even able to send much data back on Jupiter's moons. That had to wait until Voyager 1 and 2 in 1979.

So basically when the Apollo missions were taking place, practically nothing was known about either Jupiter or Saturn. Hell, full imaging of the surface of Mars had to wait until the Mariner 9 orbiter of 1972.

Wibbs · 21-03-2012 8:52am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

so we could plan for generation ships using fusion / plasma or giant solar solar sails and ginormous lasers, we could launch now and the lads could hope we make better lasers to speed them up

This is just a personal feeling mind you, but I think interstellar travel may be a more of a problem than we think. From what I gather the mass of the observable universe is too small(by quite a margin), hence science started looking for dark matter. Maybe, just maybe alongside this more strange matter much of the mass is actually in the form of actual matter. "Grey matter"

It's my suspicion that beyond the gravity wells of solar systems where planets hoover matter up leaving wide open spaces in between space may be quite crowded. That traveling at high speed might be impossible as no "plough" we can come up with will get the bigger stuff out of the way. The energies involved if you hit a grain of sand at near light speed would be pretty big. Something the size of a loaf of bread would be off the scale. It might explain why as yet we see no evidence of space faring civilisations out there.

120_Minutes · 21-03-2012 9:24am

By the way the Russians are heading to the moon.... Hoping to have a man there by 2030. I'm delighted, HD footage and maybe a landing site close to the apollo landings just to shut the nut jobs up?

rgmmg · 21-03-2012 5:18pm

I don't know much about space but find it amazing that if there is somone out there 100 light years away watching us on Earth the Titanic is about to go down and my Gran is being born (now dead

)

Cork boy 55 · 21-03-2012 5:22pm

ForeverYoung90 wrote: »

It may be the drink talking but how the fook did we manage to put a mere ordinary man on the moon.The technology and physics etc is just mindblowing to me.
Just makes you feel good to be honest and believe you can do and achieve anything and nothing is impossible.

I belive it was a very high risk affair with 1960s tech and they are very lucky
to have all come back.

--Kaiser-- · 21-03-2012 5:35pm

120_Minutes wrote: »

By the way the Russians are heading to the moon.... Hoping to have a man there by 2030. I'm delighted, HD footage and maybe a landing site close to the apollo landings just to shut the nut jobs up?

You'd have to kidnap one of those conspiracy theorists and land them on the moon.....and they probabaly still wouldn't believe you

Nothingbetter2d · 21-03-2012 5:39pm

i've been to mars 6 times already...haven't any of ye? :rolleyes:

rgmmg · 21-03-2012 5:48pm

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

i've been to mars 6 times already...haven't any of ye? :rolleyes:

I was wondering why folk called you a space cadet alright

sbsquarepants · 21-03-2012 5:51pm

120_Minutes wrote: »

By the way the Russians are heading to the moon.... Hoping to have a man there by 2030.

Are they getting a bus?

That would be 60 years after the americans first done it??
There wasn't never no man on the god damn moon!!

Nothingbetter2d · 21-03-2012 6:05pm

rgmmg wrote: »

I was wondering why folk called you a space cadet alright

i use a stargate i have in my living room but shhhhh don't tell the yanks.

shizz · 21-03-2012 6:23pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Are they getting a bus?

That would be 60 years after the americans first done it??
There wasn't never no man on the god damn moon!!

These things take a lot of planning. There are reputations to uphold (and in the Russians case make better).

In any case, I can't recall hearing that they are actually planning this but if they are, it won't be a get there and plant a flag mission. It will definitely have development in mind.

AngryBollix · 21-03-2012 6:29pm

ForeverYoung90 wrote: »

It may be the drink talking but how the fook did we manage to put a mere ordinary man on the moon.The technology and physics etc is just mindblowing to me.
Just makes you feel good to be honest and believe you can do and achieve anything and nothing is impossible.

It's all like flying in the sky and sh1t

Statistician · 21-03-2012 6:47pm

ForeverYoung90 wrote: »

It may be the drink talking but how the fook did we manage to put a mere ordinary man on the moon.The technology and physics etc is just mindblowing to me.
Just makes you feel good to be honest and believe you can do and achieve anything and nothing is impossible.

The revenue/irish government will soon quash those dreams of yours!

Now back to work. Bondholders need paying.

wdwoods · 22-03-2012 8:34pm

44leto wrote: »

Ohh right I think I may have been at the USA amazon.

There are two editions of 'How Apollo Flew to the Moon'. As its author, I'm bound to recommend the newer edition. It's more expensive but it is 25% thicker and is much more the book I originally intended. W. David Woods

shizz · 22-03-2012 10:12pm

wdwoods wrote: »

There are two editions of 'How Apollo Flew to the Moon'. As its author, I'm bound to recommend the newer edition. It's more expensive but it is 25% thicker and is much more the book I originally intended. W. David Woods

Haha I dunno what to make of this?

summerskin · 22-03-2012 10:16pm

shizz wrote: »

wdwoods wrote: »

There are two editions of 'How Apollo Flew to the Moon'. As its author, I'm bound to recommend the newer edition. It's more expensive but it is 25% thicker and is much more the book I originally intended. W. David Woods

Haha I dunno what to make of this?

Perhaps a large paper rocket?

squod · 22-03-2012 10:17pm

wdwoods wrote: »

There are two editions of 'How Apollo Flew to the Moon'. As its author, I'm bound to recommend the newer edition. It's more expensive but it is 25% thicker and is much more the book I originally intended. W. David Woods

Andrex is cheaper.

Capt'n Midnight · 22-03-2012 10:36pm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/21/musk_mars_colonization/

SpaceX boss Elon Musk has said that later this year or in early 2013 he will announce a plan to offer flights to Mars and back for half a million dollars, hopefully within the next decade.

squod · 22-03-2012 10:50pm

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/21/musk_mars_colonization/

Goes on to explain the need for water to act as a barrier. Not aluminium. 'Cause that would fry people like.

shizz · 23-03-2012 1:47am

Water acts as a better barrier to radiation what more can you take out of it?

Capt'n Midnight · 23-03-2012 2:48am

shizz wrote: »

Water acts as a better barrier to radiation what more can you take out of it?

to some types of radiation

shizz · 23-03-2012 11:12am

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

to some types of radiation

Yeah I know, Just wondering why squod was using sarcasm.

GavRedKing · 23-03-2012 12:52pm

Its an old article but still.

: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1324192/Hundred-Year-Starship-Mars-mission-leave-astronauts-planet-forever.html

One way mission to Mars anyone?

JohnMarston · 23-03-2012 1:42pm

Going to mars? To what point and purpose?

Isn't that money better spent on fixing stuff on this planet.

Yes it would be impressive but seems pointless to me

Canis Lupus · 23-03-2012 2:21pm

JohnMarston wrote: »

Going to mars? To what point and purpose?

Isn't that money better spent on fixing stuff on this planet.

Yes it would be impressive but seems pointless to me

We'll have to move out of earth eventually. If someone said I don't see the point in moving on from donkey and cart where would we be. This planet is fooked anyways... might as well find somewhere else to screw up as well.

Capt'n Midnight · 23-03-2012 3:59pm

JohnMarston wrote: »

Going to mars? To what point and purpose?

Isn't that money better spent on fixing stuff on this planet.

Yes it would be impressive but seems pointless to me

From Yes Minister (The National Education Service First airtime BBC: 21 January 1988)

Jim Hacker: "Math has become politicized: If it costs 5 billion pounds a year to maintain Britain's nuclear defences and 75 pounds a year to feed a starving African child, how many African children can be saved from starvation if the Ministry of Defence abandoned nuclear weapons?"
Sir Humphrey: "That's easy: none. They'd spend it all on conventional weapons."

The point is that that money would never be spent fixing stuff on this planet, it would go to Homeland Security or the NSA or

RichieC · 23-03-2012 4:23pm

JohnMarston wrote: »

Going to mars? To what point and purpose?

Isn't that money better spent on fixing stuff on this planet.

Yes it would be impressive but seems pointless to me

"what's the point in getting down out of this tree, it's perfectly fine up here" :rolleyes:

Duggy747 · 23-03-2012 4:26pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc

Phill Ewinn · 23-03-2012 9:49pm

Is it true the spacesuits worn by Buzz are still on display in some meseum?

sunflower27 · 23-03-2012 10:06pm

squod wrote: »

Ray Mears could have got there by himself

Alf from Home & Away????

120_Minutes · 23-03-2012 10:08pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Are they getting a bus?

That would be 60 years after the americans first done it??
There wasn't never no man on the god damn moon!!

Actually 12 men walked on the moon. deal with it.

shizz wrote: »

These things take a lot of planning. There are reputations to uphold (and in the Russians case make better).

In any case, I can't recall hearing that they are actually planning this but if they are, it won't be a get there and plant a flag mission. It will definitely have development in mind.

here's the linky.

Jarren · 23-03-2012 10:50pm

Nazis got there first

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX2cS8wvQHI

shizz · 23-03-2012 11:24pm

Jarren wrote: »

Nazis got there first

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX2cS8wvQHI

So much wrong.....

Frank Black · 23-03-2012 11:30pm

ForeverYoung90 wrote: »

It may be the drink talking but how the fook did we manage to put a mere ordinary man on the moon.The technology and physics etc is just mindblowing to me.
Just makes you feel good to be honest and believe you can do and achieve anything and nothing is impossible.

The physics was pretty basic.
The engineering was amazing.

old_aussie · 24-03-2012 6:35am

chin_grin wrote: »

And why hasn't it been done again eh?

It has been done again.

JohnMarston · 26-03-2012 11:25am

We put a man on the moon?

Now the REM song is stuck in my head, and yours too.

sbsquarepants · 26-03-2012 1:57pm

120_Minutes wrote: »

Actually 12 men walked on the moon. deal with it.

I just don't buy it.
It would be an absolutely enormous undertaking today. I just don't believe it was doable in the 60's, when calculators were still the stuff of sci fi films. I still haven't seen anything to convince me otherwise, and the russians saying they'll do in 18 years time, doesn't make those doubts any smaller!

JohnMarston wrote: »

Now the REM song is stuck in my head, and yours too.

Good tune though!!

AlmightyCushion · 26-03-2012 2:04pm

So for all the people who don't believe the moon landings happened, where exactly did the rockets go when they were meant to be on their way to the moon? Do you think they just stayed in orbit for a few days before sending the astronauts back to earth?

We put a man on the moon?

Comments