NASA is significantly more risk averse these days. The cover a lot more bases with safety. No one cared if the Gemini astronauts got back problems from G-forces during launch. These days they just care about way more and have to study things that werent even on the radar in prior days of manned spaceflight.
I do wish you'd respond to my criticism of bike-distance analogy, I think it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of spaceflight, and might help calibrate your beliefs more.
Okay let's make this simple. Answer one question:
If Project Artemis is unsuccessful and they can not put these 4 humans back on the moon in the decade of the 2020's, do you still believe the success of the other 7 missions that put 12 people on the moon, 50 years ago?
It's a yes or no question. We don't need some deflectionary, smokescreen narrative answer. Just a yes or no.
Nah the success of current programs is too dependent on politics to use it as a stick to judge the Apollo successes.
The direction of these programs changes with each administration we are spending less than 10% of what we did on Apollo for all of NASA - not just manned spaceflight.
Do I believe we will have humans on the moon by 2030? 50%. by 2035, 95%.
If we gave 4% of the federal budget to NASA purely for Artemis ($200B/yr) then 100% we would be on the moon in < 5 years. The Apollo program cost ~$25B per launch in current dollars.
Sound does not travel in a vacuum and if a metal post was to be hammered into the surface of the moon, you are still in a vacuum and there will be no sound.
Here is another sound in a vacuum. Amazing how Apollo kept defying the laws of physics while on the moon:
Agreed -- sound does not travel in a vacuum. Sounds waves can travel through solids, liquids and gasses. The post, the hammer, the astronaut, his gloves, his suit, the air inside the suit, are not vacuums. The soundwaves have a conduit. Question answered -- time to move on to your next failed example.
Regarding your next "youtube" evidence, when I listen to the original source, the 2+ minutes of audio is filled with spurious and extraneous noise throughout.
Do I have a slight double take moment when I hear that NASA are sending up the crash test dummies "seeking to learn how best to protect astronauts for Artemis II" () given that surely you know exactly how to do this because you've done it allegedly 7 times before? Yes of course I do. That makes little sense to me, I don't understand what you are trying to find out that must surely already know. But, as I said - we should stay open until this Artemis thing is either a success or abject failure and then I don't understand how there would be any questions anymore.
Do you think they're using the exact same safety equipment they used back in the 60s? I hope not, because that would be silly. So theoretically they have designed new safety equipment. Do you think they're going to use that new safety equipment in space without testing it first? I hope not, because that would also be silly
man I sure am glad you aren't a NASA engineer. We really WOULD have to fake the landing!
NASA engineers in the 60s got man there with a little tin foil, duct tape, bendy straws and chewing gum. You don’t think today’s engineers can figure that out?
NASA is significantly more risk averse these days. The cover a lot more bases with safety. No one cared if the Gemini astronauts got back problems from G-forces during launch. These days they just care about way more and have to study things that werent even on the radar in prior days of manned spaceflight.
Weird, huh? All these things they need to learn before they attempt to send people to the moon. It’s as though they never went before. Amirite?
LOL I really have to be super precise with my language, I love this stuff.
In the 1960s we were fine just shooting 35 year old dudes up without worry. They volunteered and we had data that they would survive.
Nowadays - for better or for worse - we dont just want them to survive we want to it to be as safe as possible. We have the knowledge and skills to care about a lot more than the minimum safety requirements.
In the article - which I assume you didn't read? - they discuss why they want this new data:
Each of these purposeful passengers aboard Orion inform astronaut working conditions and safety, helping NASA and its partners better prepare for – and minimize – the potentially harmful effects from deep space missions for space travel farther from Earth, and longer in duration, than ever before.
They are building a much large spacecraft, they have to test it! Why is that so weird?
At some point these discussions kinda seem disingenuous. Why do car companies crash-test ever new vehicle they make? Shouldnt they know how to make a safe car? Obviously NASA is going to want to get the most data they can. I dont see how collecting more, and more thorough data means previous fights were impossible.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
If Project Artemis is unsuccessful and they can not put these 4 humans back on the moon in the decade of the 2020's, do you still believe the success of the other 7 missions that put 12 people on the moon, 50 years ago?
It's a yes or no question. We don't need some deflectionary, smokescreen narrative answer. Just a yes or no.
Nah the success of current programs is too dependent on politics to use it as a stick to judge the Apollo successes.
The direction of these programs changes with each administration we are spending less than 10% of what we did on Apollo for all of NASA - not just manned spaceflight.
Do I believe we will have humans on the moon by 2030? 50%. by 2035, 95%.
If we gave 4% of the federal budget to NASA purely for Artemis ($200B/yr) then 100% we would be on the moon in < 5 years. The Apollo program cost ~$25B per launch in current dollars.
You got that built-in excuse ready to go don’t you :golf clap.
“Well the only reason we didn’t get to the moon was because of mean politicians and not enough money. Otherwise, we would have.”
Nah the success of current programs is too dependent on politics to use it as a stick to judge the Apollo successes.
The direction of these programs changes with each administration we are spending less than 10% of what we did on Apollo for all of NASA - not just manned spaceflight.
Do I believe we will have humans on the moon by 2030? 50%. by 2035, 95%.
If we gave 4% of the federal budget to NASA purely for Artemis ($200B/yr) then 100% we would be on the moon in < 5 years. The Apollo program cost ~$25B per launch in current dollars.
You got that built-in excuse ready to go don’t you :golf clap.
“Well the only reason we didn’t get to the moon was because of mean politicians and not enough money. Otherwise, we would have.”
Good job. 👍
Q: Do you think funding matters to the pace of project?
If Project Artemis is unsuccessful and they can not put these 4 humans back on the moon in the decade of the 2020's, do you still believe the success of the other 7 missions that put 12 people on the moon, 50 years ago?
It's a yes or no question. We don't need some deflectionary, smokescreen narrative answer. Just a yes or no.
Nah the success of current programs is too dependent on politics to use it as a stick to judge the Apollo successes.
The direction of these programs changes with each administration we are spending less than 10% of what we did on Apollo for all of NASA - not just manned spaceflight.
Do I believe we will have humans on the moon by 2030? 50%. by 2035, 95%.
If we gave 4% of the federal budget to NASA purely for Artemis ($200B/yr) then 100% we would be on the moon in < 5 years. The Apollo program cost ~$25B per launch in current dollars.
No offense but you did exactly what I said wasn't necessary.
So if this Artemis programme isn't successful, it does not change your belief of what allegedly was successful back in 1969? (and you believe just $$$ is the reason why).
BTW I saw you response above with respect to if funding matters to the speed of a project - I would counter this by asking "does technology/technological resources/knowledge on all levels matter to the speed and/or success of a project?" - right now we live in a world with all of those resources/knowledge at a ridiculously higher and more advanced level than in 1969.
Okay and with that I think any further interaction with you on this topic is kind of futile, haha. See ya.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Until someone actually, provably lands on the moon, we can't be 100% sure it's even there. It could be some kind of projected image or mass hallucination.
Robots were sent, but again we can't be 100% sure the remotedly-controlled devices didn't malfunction and end up somewhere else, very like what we imagined the moon would be.
Not saying it didn't happen! Just 99.x% likely it did. There is, for example, an idea taken seriously by some scientists that everything is actually a simulation. Until they are debunked, there's at the very least a slight chance for everything to be fake.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Those who understand Descartes realize he failed to prove his own existence
Nah the success of current programs is too dependent on politics to use it as a stick to judge the Apollo successes.
The direction of these programs changes with each administration we are spending less than 10% of what we did on Apollo for all of NASA - not just manned spaceflight.
Do I believe we will have humans on the moon by 2030? 50%. by 2035, 95%.
If we gave 4% of the federal budget to NASA purely for Artemis ($200B/yr) then 100% we would be on the moon in < 5 years. The Apollo program cost ~$25B per launch in current dollars.
No offense but you did exactly what I said wasn't necessary.
So if this Artemis programme isn't successful, it does not change your belief of what allegedly was successful back in 1969? (and you believe just $ is the reason why).
BTW I saw you response above with respect to if funding matters to the speed of a project - I would counter this by asking "does technology/technological resources/knowledge on all levels matter to the speed and/or success of a project?" - right now we live in a world with all of those resources/knowledge at a ridiculously higher and more advanced level than in 1969.
Okay and with that I think any further interaction with you on this topic is kind of futile, haha. See ya.
that is how it has been with these blokes for decades.
every administration has said we're going back, every administration has canceled it due to "budget constraints" or "we already learned everything we can on the moon" (which is, of course, ridiculous), or "we already WENT to the moon now we're going to MARS!!!!"
artemis will fail because they aren't as good at faking things today as technologically advanced citizens are at discovery fakery.
they will keep pushing this mars story. nobody will end up going.
spacex is a fraud. sending a tesla roadster into orbit is just negligent and gets us no closer to colonizing mars. it's dumb. it's all dumb and very, very sad.
Nah the success of current programs is too dependent on politics to use it as a stick to judge the Apollo successes.
The direction of these programs changes with each administration we are spending less than 10% of what we did on Apollo for all of NASA - not just manned spaceflight.
Do I believe we will have humans on the moon by 2030? 50%. by 2035, 95%.
If we gave 4% of the federal budget to NASA purely for Artemis ($200B/yr) then 100% we would be on the moon in < 5 years. The Apollo program cost ~$25B per launch in current dollars.
No offense but you did exactly what I said wasn't necessary.
So if this Artemis programme isn't successful, it does not change your belief of what allegedly was successful back in 1969? (and you believe just $ is the reason why).
BTW I saw you response above with respect to if funding matters to the speed of a project - I would counter this by asking "does technology/technological resources/knowledge on all levels matter to the speed and/or success of a project?" - right now we live in a world with all of those resources/knowledge at a ridiculously higher and more advanced level than in 1969.
Okay and with that I think any further interaction with you on this topic is kind of futile, haha. See ya.
No. You asked the question:
If Project Artemis is unsuccessful and they can not put these 4 humans back on the moon in the decade of the 2020's, do you still believe the success of the other 7 missions that put 12 people on the moon, 50 years ago?
My answer is: yes
I then went on to explain why the timelines of Artemis don't effect my analysis of the Apollo program. I was just giving you more info into my decision, not doing anything "unnecessary."
Does technology/technological resources/knowledge on all levels matter to the speed and/or success of a project?
Yes and the scope of the Artemis program is much larger because of this - thus to match timelines of Apollo is needs similar funding! This ain't that hard... but... see ya?
No offense but you did exactly what I said wasn't necessary.
So if this Artemis programme isn't successful, it does not change your belief of what allegedly was successful back in 1969? (and you believe just $ is the reason why).
BTW I saw you response above with respect to if funding matters to the speed of a project - I would counter this by asking "does technology/technological resources/knowledge on all levels matter to the speed and/or success of a project?" - right now we live in a world with all of those resources/knowledge at a ridiculously higher and more advanced level than in 1969.
Okay and with that I think any further interaction with you on this topic is kind of futile, haha. See ya.
that is how it has been with these blokes for decades.
every administration has said we're going back, every administration has canceled it due to "budget constraints" or "we already learned everything we can on the moon" (which is, of course, ridiculous), or "we already WENT to the moon now we're going to MARS!!!!"
artemis will fail because they aren't as good at faking things today as technologically advanced citizens are at discovery fakery.
they will keep pushing this mars story. nobody will end up going.
spacex is a fraud. sending a tesla roadster into orbit is just negligent and gets us no closer to colonizing mars. it's dumb. it's all dumb and very, very sad.
I mean yeah... youre describing why US manned spaceflight progress has been stagnant, constant political restructuring.
Meanwhile we have become very good at getting stuff into low earth orbit cheaply (mainly SpaceX); because thats where everyone is aligned and it's economically beneficial.
I enjoy how we are all slowly coming to agreement here. It's easy if we just discuss without all the noise and anger :)
In all sincerity and earnestness: If anybody in this thread isn't trolling or in it for the lolz and truly believes there is doubt that we landed on the moon, please make an appointment at the nearest university with an astronomy department and have a chat with people who know the score. Denying reality is not healthy.
(Again, Salvitore, if you are trolling like everybody else, this is quite clever. Full points, 10/10.)
No offense but you did exactly what I said wasn't necessary.
So if this Artemis programme isn't successful, it does not change your belief of what allegedly was successful back in 1969? (and you believe just $ is the reason why).
BTW I saw you response above with respect to if funding matters to the speed of a project - I would counter this by asking "does technology/technological resources/knowledge on all levels matter to the speed and/or success of a project?" - right now we live in a world with all of those resources/knowledge at a ridiculously higher and more advanced level than in 1969.
Okay and with that I think any further interaction with you on this topic is kind of futile, haha. See ya.
No. You asked the question:
If Project Artemis is unsuccessful and they can not put these 4 humans back on the moon in the decade of the 2020's, do you still believe the success of the other 7 missions that put 12 people on the moon, 50 years ago?
My answer is: yes
I then went on to explain why the timelines of Artemis don't effect my analysis of the Apollo program. I was just giving you more info into my decision, not doing anything "unnecessary."
Does technology/technological resources/knowledge on all levels matter to the speed and/or success of a project?
Yes and the scope of the Artemis program is much larger because of this - thus to match timelines of Apollo is needs similar funding! This ain't that hard... but... see ya?
So it was easy to get to the moon in 1969, but now it’s difficult. Got it. 🤦♂️
In the 1960's we did not have the battery technology to provide any where near enough energy to maintain life support, air, heat, cooling ANALOG computer systems for such a lengthy amount of time. Analog systems require much more power than digital systems. How was this done????
The Van Allen belts require the capsules to have lead shielding to protect the occupants. NASA did not use lead, they used aluminum, gold colored foil, curtain rods and what looks like paper mache. 🤣 What secret 1960's technology did NASA use to protect the actorNOTS????
There is no crater underneath ANY of the lunar landers; to slow the descent to nearly zero, so as to land without harming ship or crew, they had to use powerful rockets - that HAD to have left a super-visible crater directly below the craft. Not one photo shows one. Why is there no blast crater????
Along the same lines, such a landing should have kicked up a HUGE dust storm (the Lunar Rover driver said that THEY, were driving thru a cloud of dust.) Yet, in ALL pictures of the lunar landers, not one, not one shows a bit of dust on the landing pads! They should have had lots of it. Why was there no dust on the landing pads???
How long before people finally realize we haven't gone BACK because we never went in the first place?
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
My thoughts on future manned missions to the moon? Sure. I’m your huckleberry. 😉
My thought is that it sure is interesting that it supposedly took us only 7 years to develop a successful mission to put a man on the moon in the 1960s. However, in the 21st century we’re on year 18 of this project and still haven’t gotten anywhere close.
It took one year to build the Empire State Building How long did it take to rebuild the World Trade Center?
If Project Artemis is unsuccessful and they can not put these 4 humans back on the moon in the decade of the 2020's, do you still believe the success of the other 7 missions that put 12 people on the moon, 50 years ago?
My answer is: yes
I then went on to explain why the timelines of Artemis don't effect my analysis of the Apollo program. I was just giving you more info into my decision, not doing anything "unnecessary."
Does technology/technological resources/knowledge on all levels matter to the speed and/or success of a project?
Yes and the scope of the Artemis program is much larger because of this - thus to match timelines of Apollo is needs similar funding! This ain't that hard... but... see ya?
So it was easy to get to the moon in 1969, but now it’s difficult. Got it. 🤦♂️
$300B in 2022 money is easy? Nice - I wanna live in your country. Remind me where that is again?
In all sincerity and earnestness: If anybody in this thread isn't trolling or in it for the lolz and truly believes there is doubt that we landed on the moon, please make an appointment at the nearest university with an astronomy department and have a chat with people who know the score. Denying reality is not healthy.
(Again, Salvitore, if you are trolling like everybody else, this is quite clever. Full points, 10/10.)
My thoughts on future manned missions to the moon? Sure. I’m your huckleberry. 😉
My thought is that it sure is interesting that it supposedly took us only 7 years to develop a successful mission to put a man on the moon in the 1960s. However, in the 21st century we’re on year 18 of this project and still haven’t gotten anywhere close.
It took one year to build the Empire State Building How long did it take to rebuild the World Trade Center?
In all sincerity and earnestness: If anybody in this thread isn't trolling or in it for the lolz and truly believes there is doubt that we landed on the moon, please make an appointment at the nearest university with an astronomy department and have a chat with people who know the score. Denying reality is not healthy.
(Again, Salvitore, if you are trolling like everybody else, this is quite clever. Full points, 10/10.)
Ah yes, appeal to authority. That's the ticket!
Beats your appeal to ignorance. :b
(Wasn't talking to you, anyway. We all know you're just trolling. 7/10. Recycled material, but you did get some people to bite in a big way.)
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.