Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

We landed on Mars... again? [Mod note post #1]

13567…12

Comments

  • #102
    Tippbhoy1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 193 ✭✭Tippbhoy1


    Das Reich wrote: »
    I did answered with numbers what is strange or not. You didn't aswered if you not find those numbers strange or not. Who said Martian landings are fake? Definately not me. Probably you are right about the non existence of conspiracy theory, but are proud enough to not question some things. I don't have the fear to question things, I did grow up in a VERY CHRISTIAN country and when I was a child family members were very upset when I doubt about the existence of god. And 30 years later they are all non believers now. I would be called a conspirationist then.

    So now I had answered all your questions, please answer the followings:

    1 - You not find strange that they did 10 travels to the moon in a very short period, and on the very starting of human space exploration, making a million km and after that they never went beyond the low Earth orbit? 50 after that? You don't find it strange? I do. Period.

    2 - You don't think that to build another program to go to the moon would be much easier, cheaper, safer, faster etc... etc... etc... with all the technology we got in 50 years? Why going to the moon every few months and never again after that?

    1. There has been no political will to do it up to now. Outside of actually going to the moon, what would someone do a few hundred thousand miles out there. First off it’s kind of dangerous out there hanging around the van Allen radiation belts and secondly fuel and rocket science, when you go you need either a lot of fuel to come back or you need to sling shot back off the moon. So...you either go to the moon or you don’t leave low earth orbit. Why didn’t they go again, there was plans for Apollo missions up to #20 and they were canned due to cost. Why haven’t we gone since, again, no cost or political will. At one point there was plans to continue to the next program, Mars. Again when the moon capabilities were binned, Mars missions had no chance, read up on Werner Von Braun.

    We could do it over the past 5 decades if we wanted to, but no nation with sufficient resources has wanted to enough. I don’t find it strange, I do find it a real pity and a lost opportunity.

    The use of terms like “destroyed the ability to go to the moon” is making it sound like the astronauts with approval from NASA went around and blew up all the facilities, lined up all the engineers for summary execution, and burned all blueprints, to ensure we could never go back for some unknown reason. Lead engineers died over the following decades, the launch pad was repurposed for the space shuttle, manufacturing lines were closed due to lack of orders, others built the space shuttle, knowledge was lost over decades. It would take a huge effort to get it back as opposed to if the lights had been kept on all the time. That probably causes frustration and use of negative terms like destroyed to enable people to bemoan the fact we had it and we lost it.

    2. We are going back to the moon. Look up the Artemis program. And yes, it will be cheaper in real terms, the fact people don’t know about it obviously demonstrates the scale of the effort versus last time around. Faster, in terms of the program, I don’t think so, speed is dictated by money although commercial entities like spacex are doing great work. Actual speed of the craft will be more or less the same, a rocket is still a rocket, and a fuel tank is still a fuel tank, we haven’t any fundamentally different propulsion since the last time we went. The program will be far more sophisticated in terms of electronics as an example, quality of cameras and streaming as an example. Why are we doing it, the space race is coming back, the US v China, space is the battleground again. Hence the USA under Trump launched the US Space Force recently as an example. First the moon, then on to Mars.


  • #103
    kippy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,781 ✭✭✭✭kippy


    Mr_Muffin wrote: »
    We can send a robot to mars but instead of equipping it with a decent camera, we attach the same black and white camera my grandparents used on their wedding day in 1934.

    There are ultra high quality cams and audio capturing equipment on it.
    As well as cutting edge tech in general.

    People don't get the complexities involved in commissioning this tech from a distance, remotely. And even moreso don't appreciate the distances involved.

    I'm not pro spending billions and billions on space in general when our own world is such a mess but there have been discoveries and inventions that have come as a result of space exploration that have helped the planet.


  • #104
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,329 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Das Reich wrote: »
    1 - You not find strange that they did 10 travels to the moon in a very short period, and on the very starting of human space exploration, making a million km and after that they never went beyond the low Earth orbit? 50 after that? You don't find it strange? I do. Period.

    2 - You don't think that to build another program to go to the moon would be much easier, cheaper, safer, faster etc... etc... etc... with all the technology we got in 50 years? Why going to the moon every few months and never again after that?

    We could fly on supersonic passenger aircraft in the 1970s but we can't anymore. Do you find that strange?


  • #105
    Ger Roe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭Ger Roe


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    We could fly on supersonic passenger aircraft in the 1970s but we can't anymore. Do you find that strange?

    No. We didn't need to then and we don't need to now. Concorde was too expensive to operate for the time gain it brought.

    If there was a cheaper alternative way to fly supersonic or an increased commercially viable demand, we would be doing it now. We could do it now, if someone who didn't care about commercial return wanted to fund it as a vanity project. In the end, it was a French/UK government vanity project, flying the flag for UK French achievement.

    Concorde fell victim to commercial market forces... the French and UK government were long looking for a way out of the loss making business, even before the Paris crash and subsequent relaunch finally put an end to it.

    If Mick O'Leary thought he could make a Euro out of supersonic flight, he would be doing it.


  • #106
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,329 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Ger Roe wrote: »
    No. We didn't need to then and we don't need to now. Concorde was too expensive to operate for the time gain it brought.

    If there was a cheaper alternative way to fly supersonic or an increased commercially viable demand, we would be doing it now. We could do it now, if someone who didn't care about commercial return wanted to fund it as a vanity project. In the end, it was a French/UK government vanity project, flying the flag for UK French achievement.

    Concorde fell victim to commercial market forces... the French and UK government were long looking for a way out of the loss making business, even before the Paris crash and subsequent relaunch finally put an end to it.

    If Mick O'Leary thought he could make a Euro out of supersonic flight, he would be doing it.

    You've answered your own question. Flying to the moon in the 1970s was massively expensive. At once point in the mid 60s nearly 5% of the US national budget was spent on NASA and Apollo - an unsustainable level of spending. By 1980 it was down to 0.8% and today the budget is just 0.5% of federal spending. If spending has been maintained at the Apollo era levels, we'd undoubtedly have permanent lunar bases today and the first human would've set foot on Mars by now! But no politician was going to propose that level of spending, especially after the goal of reaching the Moon had been met.

    Also at the time the technology did not allow for long term stays on the moon. The Apollo hardware was built with one goal: getting people to the moon and returning them safely to Earth. That was it it. The longest Apollo mission was Apollo 17 and it spent just over 3 days on the Moon. That was pretty much stretching the capabilities of the hardware to the limits. Increasing the capabilities of the Apollo hardware would've cost billions of dollars, money which was not available.

    In the meantime we've learned a lot more about long stays in space through the ISS - what it takes to keep humans alive for long periods in space and what effect that has on the human body. None of this was known in the 60s, 70s etc. And because so much has been learned and technology is much better today, the Artemis programme will look to establish longer term stays on the Moon this decade.


  • #107
    Blowfish
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,112 ✭✭✭Blowfish


    Das Reich wrote: »
    1 - You not find strange that they did 10 travels to the moon in a very short period, and on the very starting of human space exploration, making a million km and after that they never went beyond the low Earth orbit? 50 after that? You don't find it strange? I do. Period.
    NASA budget as a percentage of US federal budget over the past 50 years:

    450px-NASA-Budget-Federal.svg.png

    If you adjust for inflation, the peak in 1966 was 46.7 billion (in 2019 dollars), whereas NASA's actual 2020 budget was 21.5 billion. It's pretty clear that the investment for political reasons is just not there as much as during the cold war era.
    Das Reich wrote: »
    2 - You don't think that to build another program to go to the moon would be much easier, cheaper, safer, faster etc... etc... etc... with all the technology we got in 50 years? Why going to the moon every few months and never again after that?
    Sure it would be, in the same way that building a factory that creates a basic modern car would be easier, cheaper, safer and faster than building the factory to create the Model T was. That doesn't mean doing it now wouldn't still require a huge amount of capital investment and political will.
    kippy wrote: »
    I'm not pro spending billions and billions on space in general when our own world is such a mess but there have been discoveries and inventions that have come as a result of space exploration that have helped the planet.
    While I understand that sentiment in some sense, it comes across a little hollow when you realise how tiny the 21.5 billion budget for NASA is when you look at the 676 billion spent yearly by the US on it's military. I don't think 0.5% of the federal budget is all that an unreasonable amount to spend on furthering the knowledge of humankind when you look at how the rest of the budget is spent.


  • #108
    I regurgitate the news
    Closed Accounts Posts: 140 ✭✭I regurgitate the news


    Ger Roe wrote: »
    The person you quoted, is a NASA employee, he is not stating official NASA policy. Lots of employees say daft things about their employers and employment. The process to redesign and improve is certainly painful, but also absolutely necessary.

    He is just an employee? He's NASA's oldest active astronaut and he's been on the ISS twice.

    He's given TED talks.

    To say he is just an employee kind of downplays him

    https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/donald-r-pettit/biography


  • #109
    Daz747
    Registered Users Posts: 10 ✭Daz747


    Hotblack Desiato wrote:
    Needless to say, this is complete and utter bullshít.

    Hotblack Desiato wrote:
    From the Wikipedia Van Allen belt article :


    It's very difficult to explain something to someone who uses wikipedia as their source of information.

    I'm not a 'Conspiracy Theorist' generally but it's hard to overlook the many challenges that Nasa would have faced during that time.

    To answer the op question, most aerospace papers state that the dosage is not low.(Roughly 1.5 times the radiation the average person receives in 1 year for every hour travelling assuming 3mm shielding) I was wrong using the word 'Toasted', but they would certainly have had detrimental health issues after it.


  • #110
    Ger Roe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭Ger Roe


    I regurgitate the news wrote: »
    He is just an employee? He's NASA's oldest active astronaut and he's been on the ISS twice.

    He's given TED talks.

    To say he is just an employee kind of downplays him

    https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/donald-r-pettit/biography

    He is still an employee, not a policy maker or official spokesperson. Arguing about his employment status doesn't take away from the coroprate policy facts that I stated. You were quoting what he said as coming from NASA - That is not correct.

    NASA got out of the launch mission aspects, to give it over to commercial enterprise, so they could concentrate on other aspects and then buy back the required services at a cheaper rate than they themselves could ever manage.

    There are going to be massive advances made in a much shorter future timeframe than would have been previously possible, thanks to NASA sub contracting critical aspects of the work that they previously undertook themselves.


  • #111
    I regurgitate the news
    Closed Accounts Posts: 140 ✭✭I regurgitate the news


    Ger Roe wrote: »
    He is still an employee, not a policy maker or official spokesperson. Arguing about his employment status doesn't take away from the coroprate policy facts that I stated. You were quoting what he said as coming from NASA - That is not correct.

    NASA got out of the launch mission aspects, to give it over to commercial enterprise, so they could concentrate on other aspects and then buy back the required services at a cheaper rate than they themselves could ever manage.

    There are going to be massive advances made in a much shorter future timeframe than would have been previously possible, thanks to NASA sub contracting critical aspects of the work that they previously undertook themselves.

    That's fair enough Ger. Just wanted to see people's opinions and appreciate your reply.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Daz747 wrote: »
    I'm not a 'Conspiracy Theorist' generally but it's hard to overlook the many challenges that Nasa would have faced during that time.
    If you are suggesting that NASA faked or covered up things about the Apollo Program, then you are suggesting a conspiracy theory.
    That makes you a conspiracy theorist.
    Daz747 wrote: »
    To answer the op question, most aerospace papers state that the dosage is not low.(Roughly 1.5 times the radiation the average person receives in 1 year for every hour travelling assuming 3mm shielding)
    ...
    but they would certainly have had detrimental health issues after it.
    And a large number of Apollo astronauts developed cataracts.
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/3580567?seq=1
    https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2004/22oct_cataracts

    This wouldn't have prevented the missions though. Why do you believe it did?
    Daz747 wrote: »
    I was wrong using the word 'Toasted',
    Yes. So why did you claim it?


  • #113
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,329 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Daz747 wrote: »
    It's very difficult to explain something to someone who uses wikipedia as their source of information.

    I'm not a 'Conspiracy Theorist' generally but it's hard to overlook the many challenges that Nasa would have faced during that time.

    To answer the op question, most aerospace papers state that the dosage is not low.(Roughly 1.5 times the radiation the average person receives in 1 year for every hour travelling assuming 3mm shielding) I was wrong using the word 'Toasted', but they would certainly have had detrimental health issues after it.

    This is quite funny. You made an unsubstantiated claim that astronauts would be "toasted" by the Van Allen Belts. Then when provided with a counter argument and a cited source you sneer at the source but don't argue the facts, which is quite telling. (And yes Wikipedia is a relevant source because many articles cite their sources). Can you provide verifiable evidence that the Van Allen Belts would toast astronauts or is this just another conspiracy theory with zero foundation?


  • #114
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Daz747 wrote: »
    It's very difficult to explain something to someone who uses wikipedia as their source of information.

    Wikipedia is a collection of sources. There is far more indepth info about the missions out there which compliments the info on Wikipedia.
    I'm not a 'Conspiracy Theorist' generally but it's hard to overlook the many challenges that Nasa would have faced during that time.

    To answer the op question, most aerospace papers state that the dosage is not low.(Roughly 1.5 times the radiation the average person receives in 1 year for every hour travelling assuming 3mm shielding) I was wrong using the word 'Toasted', but they would certainly have had detrimental health issues after it.

    They travelled through the thinnest parts of the belt and received a dose equivalent to a chest X-ray. This information is fully available online, can I ask why you doubt it?

    To point out the obvious here, anyone casting doubt on this is suggesting a) the info is all wrong or b) the missions didn't happen.


  • #115
    breezy1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,051 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    I regurgitate the news wrote: »
    He is just an employee? He's NASA's oldest active astronaut and he's been on the ISS twice.

    He's given TED talks.

    To say he is just an employee kind of downplays him

    https://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies/donald-r-pettit/biography

    Wow TED talks. Tell me does he say the moon landing was fake in these unimpeachable talks


  • #116
    Das Reich
    Registered Users Posts: 736 ✭✭✭Das Reich


    Tippbhoy1 wrote: »
    1. There has been no political will to do it up to now. Outside of actually going to the moon, what would someone do a few hundred thousand miles out there. First off it’s kind of dangerous out there hanging around the van Allen radiation belts and secondly fuel and rocket science, when you go you need either a lot of fuel to come back or you need to sling shot back off the moon. So...you either go to the moon or you don’t leave low earth orbit. Why didn’t they go again, there was plans for Apollo missions up to #20 and they were canned due to cost. Why haven’t we gone since, again, no cost or political will. At one point there was plans to continue to the next program, Mars. Again when the moon capabilities were binned, Mars missions had no chance, read up on Werner Von Braun.

    We could do it over the past 5 decades if we wanted to, but no nation with sufficient resources has wanted to enough. I don’t find it strange, I do find it a real pity and a lost opportunity.

    The use of terms like “destroyed the ability to go to the moon” is making it sound like the astronauts with approval from NASA went around and blew up all the facilities, lined up all the engineers for summary execution, and burned all blueprints, to ensure we could never go back for some unknown reason. Lead engineers died over the following decades, the launch pad was repurposed for the space shuttle, manufacturing lines were closed due to lack of orders, others built the space shuttle, knowledge was lost over decades. It would take a huge effort to get it back as opposed to if the lights had been kept on all the time. That probably causes frustration and use of negative terms like destroyed to enable people to bemoan the fact we had it and we lost it.

    2. We are going back to the moon. Look up the Artemis program. And yes, it will be cheaper in real terms, the fact people don’t know about it obviously demonstrates the scale of the effort versus last time around. Faster, in terms of the program, I don’t think so, speed is dictated by money although commercial entities like spacex are doing great work. Actual speed of the craft will be more or less the same, a rocket is still a rocket, and a fuel tank is still a fuel tank, we haven’t any fundamentally different propulsion since the last time we went. The program will be far more sophisticated in terms of electronics as an example, quality of cameras and streaming as an example. Why are we doing it, the space race is coming back, the US v China, space is the battleground again. Hence the USA under Trump launched the US Space Force recently as an example. First the moon, then on to Mars.

    First of all I have to thanks for answering without any circle around. I have to admit the fact that you have a point on saying that or you fo to the moon or don't leave the low orbit. Yes we all were told that the Apollo program was expensive and there was no political reason for that, yet I still think the Apollo mission after the Apollo 11 would make much more sense waiting few years from one to another than only few months and then never again. About the second we have to wait and see if it happens.


  • #117
    Daz747
    Registered Users Posts: 10 ✭Daz747


    King Mob wrote:
    If you are suggesting that NASA faked or covered up things about the Apollo Program, then you are suggesting a conspiracy theory. That makes you a conspiracy theorist.

    I'm generally not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm certainly not ashamed to be called one if you don't believe bare facts.

    The Conspiracy Theorist is thrown around here like it's a derogatory term and that in itself showas the ignorance of many people.

    I'm not a flat-earther etc... But if those people want to believe in that they can freely do so. Just like those that believe we went to the moon etc.. it's a free world.

    I have a background in aviation (my handle hints at it), it by no means makes any sort of expert on the subject, I just shared my opinion which il admit was influenced by some people during my training and career that really is indisputable.

    I didn't give a specific source as I didn't go looking for one but as I said before most Aerospace Met documentation states what I said previously. It is only one of a numerous amount of issues these missions would have encountered.

    Its only my opinion as I believed opinions were welcomed instead of being rubbished by the ill-infomed. I certainly would like to think we did go but unfortunately I don't believe we have as of yet.


  • #118
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    Daz747 wrote: »

    Its only my opinion as I believed opinions were welcomed instead of being rubbished by the ill-infomed. I certainly would like to think we did go but unfortunately I don't believe we have as of yet.

    Okay, so you believe that man hasn't landed on the moon. Which begs the question, what alternatively happened then?

    (As a brief explainer, "conspiracy theorists" avoid this question, and if they do answer it will be deliberately vague along the lines of "I believe it was shot in a studio somewhere". The critical flaw and contradiction in this logic is obvious, they can't, with all the evidence believe that man landed on the moon, but will entertain a vague theory that has no evidence)

    To be more specific, moon landing hoaxers convince other people by using a technique of casting doubt on the event. They claim it was e.g. impossible that astronauts could have survived passing through the Van Allen belts, which is patently untrue, but it can sound convincing to someone who doesn't know any better. This is part of a basket of tricks and techniques they use to discredit facts about the landings in order to get people to believe "something else happened" without ever detailing what that something is. It's how 99% of conspiracy theories function.

    Which is why I am interested to see the response to the above question.


  • #119
    bfa1509
    Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    King Mob wrote: »
    It's in the post you ignored. You wouldn't have this issue if you didn't do the typical conspiracy theorist thing and ignore points you don't want to address.
    Go back and read it.


    Ok. So you believe the conspiracy theory is wrong.
    Cool.

    King Mob, you constantly accuse people of avoiding your posts, yet you have done nothing but avoid posts since the beginning of the thread. Any conspiracy theory thread you don't agree with (which seems to be all of them) you swarm with posts that add absolutely nothing to the discussion. You've been doing it for years and everyone is tired of it.

    I'm going to ask you for a third time: What discoveries have we made about Mars that will benefit humanity for years to come? We've sent a robot there at least 5 times already, this should be a basic question


  • #120
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    King Mob, you constantly accuse people of avoiding your posts, yet you have done nothing but avoid posts since the beginning of the thread. Any conspiracy theory thread you don't agree with (which seems to be all of them) you swarm with posts that add absolutely nothing to the discussion. You've been doing it for years and everyone is tired of it.

    I'm going to ask you for a third time: What discoveries have we made about Mars that will benefit humanity for years to come? We've sent a robot there at least 5 times already, this should be a basic question

    We send probes and landers and rovers to other planets because we are inherently curious as a species. The discoveries benefit science (and understanding) of the universe around us, and the technology we develop along the way can be used in other applications.

    From your posts so far you seem to be complaining about the mission but also claiming it's fake, which is completely contradictory. Which is it, it happened and you don't agree with it? or it's fake?


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    breezy1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,051 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Daz747 wrote: »
    .. it's a free world.

    I have a background in aviation (my handle hints at it)

    1. Most conspiracy theorists would disagree
    2. Are you also highly trained in washing clothes


  • #122
    bfa1509
    Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    We send probes and landers and rovers to other planets because we are inherently curious as a species. The discoveries benefit science (and understanding) of the universe around us, and the technology we develop along the way can be used in other applications.

    From your posts so far you seem to be complaining about the mission but also claiming it's fake, which is completely contradictory. Which is it, it happened and you don't agree with it? or it's fake?

    It's not contradictory at all, it's the key point to my argument. If we had sent a probe that landed on Mars then we would have learned something useful by now. But we haven't. We've learned absolutely nothing.


  • #123
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    King Mob, you constantly accuse people of avoiding your posts, yet you have done nothing but avoid posts since the beginning of the thread. Any conspiracy theory thread you don't agree with (which seems to be all of them) you swarm with posts that add absolutely nothing to the discussion. You've been doing it for years and everyone is tired of it.

    I'm going to ask you for a third time: What discoveries have we made about Mars that will benefit humanity for years to come? We've sent a robot there at least 5 times already, this should be a basic question
    And I answered that point directly the first time.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116344795&postcount=26

    You shouldn't lie.

    Meanwhile, any chance you'll be addressing any of my points or substantiating any of your claims?

    Let's start simple.
    Do you believe all space missions are fake or just this latest one?


  • #124
    bfa1509
    Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    King Mob wrote: »
    And I answered that point directly the first time.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116344795&postcount=26

    You shouldn't lie.

    Meanwhile, any chance you'll be addressing any of my points or substantiating any of your claims?

    Let's start simple.
    Do you believe all space missions are fake or just this latest one?

    You did not answer it. I addressed the link you posted as irrelevant here:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116344981&postcount=27

    You are not going to plague this thread with questions without answering mine first. Now do I have to ask it for a 4th time?

    What discoveries have we made about Mars that will benefit humanity for years to come?


  • #125
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    Daz747 wrote: »
    I'm generally not a conspiracy theorist, but I'm certainly not ashamed to be called one if you don't believe bare facts.

    The Conspiracy Theorist is thrown around here like it's a derogatory term and that in itself showas the ignorance of many people.
    But the label is valid as you believe a conspiracy theory. Just a statement of fact.
    Daz747 wrote: »
    I'm not a flat-earther etc... But if those people want to believe in that they can freely do so. Just like those that believe we went to the moon etc.. it's a free world.
    and people are also free to point out such beliefs aren't true and are a bit silly.
    Daz747 wrote: »
    I didn't give a specific source as I didn't go looking for one but as I said before most Aerospace Met documentation states what I said previously. It is only one of a numerous amount of issues these missions would have encountered.
    You say that you believe bare facts.

    But the one "bare fact" you presented turned out not to be true at all. You never even looked into it, yet you claimed that the astronauts would be killed by the radiation.

    This should be a warning flag for the other "issues".

    So what other issues were there that made the moon landings impossible in your view?


  • #126
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    You did not answer it. I addressed the link you posted as irrelevant here:
    But I did answer it. You just don't accept the answer. I also addressed your dismissal of my answer in the next post, along with a bunch of other points you actually did ignore.
    bfa1509 wrote: »
    You are not going to plague this thread with questions without answering mine first. Now do I have to ask it for a 4th time?

    What discoveries have we made about Mars that will benefit humanity for years to come?
    But this has been answered many times. Dohnjoe also have you a full and complete answer.

    Maybe you could elaborate on what you're demanding.
    What do you define as "useful"?
    You clearly won't accept understanding of Mars and the universe as "useful".
    What useful knowledge did you expect to find on Mars if we really went?

    And again do you believe that all space missions are fake or just this one?
    If you ignore the point again I shall just continue with the assumption that you believe all missions are fake.


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,492 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Daz747 wrote: »
    It's very difficult to explain something to someone who uses wikipedia as their source of information.

    Everything in that article is referenced from credible sources.

    What you have is nothing but BS and nonsense.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #128
    bfa1509
    Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    King Mob wrote: »
    But I did answer it. You just don't accept the answer. I also addressed your dismissal of my answer in the next post, along with a bunch of other points you actually did ignore.


    But this has been answered many times. Dohnjoe also have you a full and complete answer.

    Maybe you could elaborate on what you're demanding.
    What do you define as "useful"?
    You clearly won't accept understanding of Mars and the universe as "useful".
    What useful knowledge did you expect to find on Mars if we really went?

    And again do you believe that all space missions are fake or just this one?
    If you ignore the point again I shall just continue with the assumption that you believe all missions are fake.
    Ok so your answer to the question is "NASA has spinoff technologies" - none of which appear to have anything to do with the Mars expeditions

    Dohnjoe's response is "because we are curious"

    And you think you are winning this debate :D


  • #129
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,492 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Das Reich wrote: »
    I not believe was destroyed, is not the Nasa that says that? You don't find strange that a man landed on the moon after few years the first man went to space, but they can't do it now? You not find strange that before Apollo 8 no one had been more than 1.600 km from Earth, then they went to 380.000 km and they did nearly 1 million km going and returning, and after 1972 they never went far than a 1.000 km? You not find strange that they sent the man to the moon only 7 months after the Apollo 8? And they did the Apollo 9 and Apollo 10 in between? And why landing 6 times in 3 years? And then never again? Its strange that you not find strange those numbers. The fact I BELIEVE in moon landings doesn't mean I can't question things that not add up. Regarding the real explanation I not have any answer as I not believe on the theory of fake landings, but would like to know.

    There is nothing strange about any of this. You need to inform yourself about the Cold War, the Vietnam War, the end of the Bretton Woods system and the gold standard, and the 1973 oil crisis. The US could spend billions in the 1960s on anything vaguely military related (as the space programme was - both the US Navy and the USAF had their own manned space programmes in the late 60s) but by the mid 1970s the US was in economic crisis. Meanwhile NASA had decided to plunge all of its manned space budget into the Shuttle, which turned out to be massively delayed, massively over budget, and a huge mistake.

    "No bucks, no Buck Rodgers" as Gus Grissom said in "The Right Stuff".

    Das Reich wrote: »
    I don't have the fear to question things, I did grow up in a VERY CHRISTIAN country and when I was a child family members were very upset when I doubt about the existence of god. And 30 years later they are all non believers now. I would be called a conspirationist then.

    So what. Atheists have been called many uncomplimentary things over the years, but not conspiracy theorists. If anything it's the religious believers who are conspiracy theorists, they believe lots of wild and crazy stuff without any evidence at all.

    Das Reich wrote: »
    There are people that builds airplanes or rockets on the back of their homes.

    So what? That's like saying that someone who can build a model aeroplane can run an airline.
    What I mean is that to rebuild a program better than Apollo would cost a fraction than it did in the 1960's. Sorry but no one can deny this, that it would be much cheaper, faster and better to go to the moon today than before.

    Rubbish. It's funny when people think that the huge gains in price and performance which specifically apply to electronics and computers (a billion-fold miniaturisation in the space of 60 years) can be applied to totally unrelated areas of engineering. So yes the onboard computers will be better, smaller and cheaper. The rocket engines won't, the expensive crygenic fuels won't, the rocket stages won't, etc.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #130
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,492 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    For info, the Vietnam War cost the US $111billion, the Apollo programme cost $25billion.

    Scrap the cap!



  • #131
    beachhead
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,761 ✭✭✭beachhead


    Only the yanks commit conspiracy in space.The ruskies,chinese.japanese or even the UAE(in turn) simply can't.They are so goody goody people.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    JimCore
    Site Banned Posts: 22 ✭JimCore


    THE MOON WAS DESTROYED?????? Am I like the last person to hear about this!?

    Also, like it or not guys but the Earth is round, we landed on the moon and we just pulled of an exceptionally cool move to land that cool ass rover on Mars.

    The science legitimises all of this. Counter arguments tend to be a bit weak on factual accuracy!

    Like imagine thinking the earth is flat. Thats a person that spends alot of time just imagining a false reality. Arent we apparently surrounded like a wall of ice or something. I mean cmon! It also means EVERYONE in NASA and SPACEX to name a few are in on this huge conspiracy.

    Dont be silly lol


  • #133
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    :p
    bfa1509 wrote: »
    Ok so your answer to the question is "NASA has spinoff technologies" - none of which appear to have anything to do with the Mars expeditions

    Dohnjoe's response is "because we are curious"

    And you think you are winning this debate :D
    Yes, those are the answers to your question. You can stop lying and saying the question was ignored now.

    You can also start answering some of the questions you've actually ignored.

    Since you believe that all space missions are faked, could you explain how this is accomplished?
    Are all world governments involved with this?


  • #134
    breezy1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,051 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    JimCore wrote: »
    THE MOON WAS DESTROYED?????? Am I like the last person to hear about this!?

    Also, like it or not guys but the Earth is round, we landed on the moon and we just pulled of an exceptionally cool move to land that cool ass rover on Mars.

    The science legitimises all of this. Counter arguments tend to be a bit weak on factual accuracy!

    Like imagine thinking the earth is flat. Thats a person that spends alot of time just imagining a false reality. Arent we apparently surrounded like a wall of ice or something. I mean cmon! It also means EVERYONE in NASA and SPACEX to name a few are in on this huge conspiracy.

    Dont be silly lol


    Dont forget the most amazing of all that time we landed a robot on to an asteroid. What a day


  • #135
    JimCore
    Site Banned Posts: 22 ✭JimCore


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    You did not answer it. I addressed the link you posted as irrelevant here:

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116344981&postcount=27

    You are not going to plague this thread with questions without answering mine first. Now do I have to ask it for a 4th time?

    What discoveries have we made about Mars that will benefit humanity for years to come?

    Really?? Is it not glaringly obvious?

    We as a species innately travel and explore. We also will likely have to leave Earth one day to prolong the existence of our species. Im sure exploring Mars will go a long way towards achieving that as a starting point.

    A quick Google search provided this

    http://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Exploration/Why_go_to_Mars#:~:text=The%20scientific%20reasons%20for%20going,preparing%20for%20future%20human%20exploration.&text=Understanding%20whether%20life%20existed%20elsewhere,a%20fundamental%20question%20of%20humankind.

    Apologies for the size but that might give you an idea of how many bits it takes to get us into Space. And send back visuals and audio from the red planet.

    What a time to be alive I say.


  • #136
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,329 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    Ok so your answer to the question is "NASA has spinoff technologies" - none of which appear to have anything to do with the Mars expeditions

    Dohnjoe's response is "because we are curious"

    And you think you are winning this debate :D

    You're just here for point scoring. Quite sad really.


  • #137
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    It's not contradictory at all, it's the key point to my argument. If we had sent a probe that landed on Mars then we would have learned something useful by now. But we haven't. We've learned absolutely nothing.

    It's completely contradictory

    On the one hand you are complaining about the latest rover being on Mars:
    Of course we get the grainy black and white images with really interesting rocks we will study for the next few years. I can't wait for the blurry red pictures of rocks to come through in about 6 or 7 months when people have finished caring about the landing event.

    But on the other hand you are claiming it's all faked:
    Of course it's faked, NASA has, is and always will be nothing more than a financial buffer/rainy day fund for the US government.

    Which is it, there is a rover on Mars or there isn't?


  • #138
    JimCore
    Site Banned Posts: 22 ✭JimCore


    There's never a conspiracy theory about the legitimacy of social welfare payments :D


  • #139
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,329 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    It's not contradictory at all, it's the key point to my argument. If we had sent a probe that landed on Mars then we would have learned something useful by now. But we haven't. We've learned absolutely nothing.

    What do you mean by "useful"?


  • #140
    bfa1509
    Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    It's completely contradictory

    On the one hand you are complaining about the latest rover being on Mars:



    But on the other hand you are claiming it's all faked:



    Which is it, there is a rover on Mars or there isn't?

    No, I was complaining about it being on the news. Of course it's faked.


  • #141
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,329 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    No, I was complaining about it being on the news. Of course it's faked.

    Proof/evidence? I'm guessing you have none, just like all the conspiracy theorists who shout fake.


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Dohnjoe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,190 ✭✭✭✭Dohnjoe


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    No, I was complaining about it being on the news. Of course it's faked.

    Okay, please provide the details and evidence on how it has been "faked".


  • #143
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    No, I was complaining about it being on the news. Of course it's faked.
    But it's not faked.

    What evidence do you have that it's faked?

    The only argument you've so far provided is that you personally don't think going to Mars is useful.
    That's not a logical argument.

    Why do you believe all other space missions are fake?


  • #144
    bfa1509
    Registered Users Posts: 1,022 ✭✭✭bfa1509


    Dohnjoe wrote: »
    Okay, please provide the details and evidence on how it has been "faked".
    King Mob wrote: »
    But it's not faked.

    What evidence do you have that it's faked?

    The only argument you've so far provided is that you personally don't think going to Mars is useful.
    That's not a logical argument.

    Why do you believe all other space missions are fake?
    Oh I have plenty of evidence. Much of which I saved before it was mysteriously censored from the internet.

    I have no interest in trying to convince you two either. You clearly despise conspiracy theories. And if either of you had your way, the whole conspiracy forum would be taken down immediately.

    Now I will address any lurkers who are open minded and interested in the topic. A good place to start is in watching investigative journalist Bart Sibrel's: "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" and "Astronaut's gone wild". These two short films cement the fact that the moon landings were faked. They, hopefully, should still be available to watch on Youtube.

    All the other so called "space missions" were faked also. If you mourned for the "victims" of the Challenger disaster in the 80s. You should fret not: there was nobody on board! Here is a picture of the astronauts side by side with a present day picture of them alive and well! (Most of them didn't even bother changing their names :rolleyes:)

    CFWXws7.png

    This should be enough to get you going!


  • #145
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    bfa1509 wrote: »
    Oh I have plenty of evidence. Much of which I saved before it was mysteriously censored from the internet.
    You have evidence, you just can't provide it?

    Sure buddy. That've very believable...

    I think it's clear to everyone you have no evidence.
    bfa1509 wrote: »
    A good place to start is in watching investigative journalist Bart Sibrel's: "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" and "Astronaut's gone wild".
    A crank, not an investigative journalist. He did no investigating. His documentary is a collection of long debunk silly arguments.
    bfa1509 wrote: »
    All the other so called "space missions" were faked also. If you mourned for the "victims" of the Challenger disaster in the 80s. You should fret not: there was nobody on board! Here is a picture of the astronauts side by side with a present day picture of them alive and well! (Most of them didn't even bother changing their names :rolleyes:)

    CFWXws7.png

    This should be enough to get you going!
    Ok. So your evidence is that they faked a shuttle explosion. They went to the bother of building a fake shuttle and running a fake shuttle program for years before and after.
    But they didn't bother to change the appearance of their fake victims, or even change their names. Or even just you know, shoot them.

    That's ridiculous.

    Why do you think this argument will convince anyone or do anything other than make your position look silly?


  • #146
    namloc1980
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,329 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Bart Sibrel has been debunked numerous times on here and many other places. He uses fancy words to bamboozle the gullible and easily convinced, but he just rehashes the same old tired conspiracy theories with zero actual evidence.

    As for the Challenger accident. It's kind of disgusting what you're are suggesting. And then to post a ridiculous picture to boot as "proof". You must think people on here are fools to believe that rubbish.


  • #147
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    Bart Sibrel has been debunked numerous times on here and many other places. He uses fancy words to bamboozle the gullible and easily convinced, but he just rehashes the same old tired conspiracy theories with zero actual evidence.
    In fairness, it's more like he's the inventor of those same tired, debunked, ignorant arguments.


  • #148
    King Mob
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,323 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-56158928

    All fake I assume?
    And all the people at mission control, are they actors? CGI? Robots?


  • #149
    JJayoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,561 ✭✭✭JJayoo


    Guy:Incognito wrote: »
    Yeah, look at this horrible grainy, black and white video with no sound.

    https://twitter.com/IrfanKh65232660/status/1362274214707924993

    Pretty sure this video had been debunked, it's actually video footage constructed from pictures taken from a previous rover and the sound is fake as the previous rover has no audio.


  • #150
    JJayoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,561 ✭✭✭JJayoo


    breezy1985 wrote: »
    Dont forget the most amazing of all that time we landed a robot on to an asteroid. What a day

    But we lost Bruce Willis :(


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I genuinely had no idea that there were conspiracy theories about modern spaceflight. What a trip.


Advertisement