NASA can have all the grand plans it wants as long as the efforts pay for themselves. If Musk can make it profitable with SpaceX, NASA can do it without taxpayer dollars or at least take a loan and pay them back after a few years and they should be able to self fund themselves. It the venture is not profitable, then don’t bother as we haven't thought the moon was profitable in 50 years...
yes but I also think that one of NASA's missions is to do the things that are exploratory and not profitable (yet), the types of things that only nations can do, yet SpaceX is changing all that.
I'm glad my mother didn't know that. She waited till she knew John Glenn didn't burn up to go to the hospital to have me. Kek. I was woken up to see Apollo missions as a kid. Got a name from Glenn. Had a 'sorry we're not hiring now' letter from NASA for the astronaut program. Got my degree with plans on entering the program. Still involved in propulsion and energy production useful in space missions. Yeah. The space program is real and has been from the beginning. (My company has sold many products for space missions, from asteroid missions to powering a rover on mars.)
MACD. Moving average convergence divergence. Like the charting technique applied to the real world.
At some point the real truth has to be revealed. Whether it's yours or seemingly the other evidence of the other side which includes the founder of NASA and a father of a NASA employee.
‘The smarter’…no, you insinuated that I failed basic physics and math. You acted like The NY Times saying Goddard didn’t understand basic physics and a rocket couldn’t work in a vacuum.
you literally do not understand the concept of “UP” and “DOWN”
i mean, you think you understand, when you are walking on flat earth…
but as soon as we talk about going to the moon, then suddenly your brain switches into science fiction mode
where “UP” suddenly becomes this abstract concept that doesn’t really exist in outer space
never mind that we arent talking about outer space
we are talking about the “space” between the earth and the moon
which absolutely has “UP” and “DOWN”
along a gradient,
peaking at a Lagrange Point
essentially, an astronaut MUST go UP and AWAY from the center of Earths mass,
for over 100,000 miles…
straight UP
“oh but the force of gravity diminishes over distance”
~ said the EE who doesn’t actually understand maxwells equations
“oh but the inverse square law”
~ said gravity
So how does a rocket goes straight up for 100,000 miles?
easy!
you use the slingshot effect,
and gravity assist,
and you fly your rocket really fast
so fast that you acKtually achieve
“escape velocity”
and then you “escape gravity”
and kinda slide sideways thru the “flat space”
like a hockey puch on fresh ice… 😂
all the way from the earth to the moon,
flat space… that place where gravity magically ceases to exist, just because you get your rocket going sooOOOOOOoooooo fast
flat space!
even more absurd than flat earth?
a rocket can’t “escape gravity”
any more than a bird can “escape gravity”
“what goes up, must come down” ~ unknown
sorry, but this is ALL science fiction
the slingshot effect?
“gravity assist”
the rocket equation
escape velocity
ALL of this moon landing science originates in the realm of science fiction
drill down into the history of these concepts, and you will find a creative science fiction writer…
so some clever writers write some science fiction, and others take those stories and develop them into intricate storylines, hire actors, make movies…
like santa claus and flying reindeer and …
the entire moon landing story was made in hollywood
by stanley kubrick
not only do we know that Kubrick filmed it,
we know HOW kubrick filmed it
here is the absolute BEST evidence that the moon landing was faked
its a NASA video,
posted by Smithsonian
its 37 seconds long
and its of the lunar lander “launching” off of the moon…
and the special effects are so horrible,
they will make you lol
slow the video down and watch moment of launch
confetti comes out of the rocket 😂
and the reason that you’ve never seen this video before, is because it’s so horrible that it actually causes people to question the rest of moon landing 🤔
This is aKtually a well known, well understood phenomenon in photography - what you're seeing is chromatic aberration which is worsened by converting an SSTV signal to NTSC. This is photography 101 stuff.
Edit: I was sortof wrong with my initial response. While true it is a type of chromatic abberation, it was not due to the lens used, but due to the fact that they used a color wheel to simulate color broadcast in SSTV within the bandwidth of a B/W TV signal. Check out the video, they explain it much better than I can https://youtu.be/fMHLvoWZfqQ (10:00 timestamp)
and the reason that you’ve never seen this video before, is because it’s so horrible that it actually causes people to question the rest of moon landing 🤔
I have seen this video since I was a kid, it's been out there since it was published like 50 years ago
Building that stuff would be like trying to build a 1967 Camaro today. All the suppliers and tools are long gone, and we just don't (sadly) build stuff the same way anymore. We have new players, new tools, new techniques, new materials, new designs
That doesn't work as well! According to you folks, the Moon landing 50 years ago, was the cats meow and IMHO, we would have still been going there with the old hardware has we ever been there! The whole story is BS!
I agree with what you're saying, we should have kept going back. But we didn't. We have other political agendas of the 1970s to blame for that, Vietnam war, space shuttle program/LEO, etc. Belee dat, if I was president at the time, we would have never stopped the moon missions
I didn't realise that if we keep saying "To the moon baby" we could actually end up on the moon!!
3 years? Is there another, more efficient NASA we don't know about?
SpaceX
Yep. It's got Trump on top of it and Elon intertwined in it.
we've had interplanetary nuclear powered spacecraft for decades - he must mean either nuclear fission powered, or fusion engine, rather than RTG
We've had rtg's but only for power and rovers but not for propulsion. They've had this fission technology for propulsion since the '50's/60's.
NASA can have all the grand plans it wants as long as the efforts pay for themselves. If Musk can make it profitable with SpaceX, NASA can do it without taxpayer dollars or at least take a loan and pay them back after a few years and they should be able to self fund themselves. It the venture is not profitable, then don’t bother as we haven't thought the moon was profitable in 50 years...
yes but I also think that one of NASA's missions is to do the things that are exploratory and not profitable (yet), the types of things that only nations can do, yet SpaceX is changing all that.
But a neighbor who's kid works for NASA said we've never been to the moon.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork." Wernher Von Braun’s Grave Stone
Conclusion... We've never been to outer space folks let alone the moon.
Well except one person, Alice of the honeymooners.
If anyone has concrete evidence otherwise please give us your facts!
Either way I could care less. I want to explore down here starting with what they are hiding in the Grand Canyon. Also Antarctica and area 51.
The Smithsonian Institute needs to be shaken with all the artifacts that they've hidden from the American public. We have a right to know.
I'm glad my mother didn't know that. She waited till she knew John Glenn didn't burn up to go to the hospital to have me. Kek. I was woken up to see Apollo missions as a kid. Got a name from Glenn. Had a 'sorry we're not hiring now' letter from NASA for the astronaut program. Got my degree with plans on entering the program. Still involved in propulsion and energy production useful in space missions. Yeah. The space program is real and has been from the beginning. (My company has sold many products for space missions, from asteroid missions to powering a rover on mars.)
MACD. Moving average convergence divergence. Like the charting technique applied to the real world.
At some point the real truth has to be revealed. Whether it's yours or seemingly the other evidence of the other side which includes the founder of NASA and a father of a NASA employee.
Thanks for chiming in.
so you failed basic math and physics, and assume everyone else did too?
😂😂😂
sorry bro, but going to the moon is science fiction
Well, as an EE with 4 years of physics and math as part of the degree and with 40 years of design experience, I beg to differ.
oh really?
so… do astronauts have to go “UP” to get to the moon?
it has been my experience that the smarter a man assumes he is, the more he will struggle with this basic concept
‘The smarter’…no, you insinuated that I failed basic physics and math. You acted like The NY Times saying Goddard didn’t understand basic physics and a rocket couldn’t work in a vacuum.
you literally do not understand the concept of “UP” and “DOWN”
i mean, you think you understand, when you are walking on flat earth…
but as soon as we talk about going to the moon, then suddenly your brain switches into science fiction mode
where “UP” suddenly becomes this abstract concept that doesn’t really exist in outer space
never mind that we arent talking about outer space
we are talking about the “space” between the earth and the moon
which absolutely has “UP” and “DOWN”
along a gradient,
peaking at a Lagrange Point
essentially, an astronaut MUST go UP and AWAY from the center of Earths mass,
for over 100,000 miles…
straight UP
“oh but the force of gravity diminishes over distance”
~ said the EE who doesn’t actually understand maxwells equations
“oh but the inverse square law”
~ said gravity
So how does a rocket goes straight up for 100,000 miles?
easy!
you use the slingshot effect,
and gravity assist,
and you fly your rocket really fast
so fast that you acKtually achieve “escape velocity”
and then you “escape gravity”
and kinda slide sideways thru the “flat space”
like a hockey puch on fresh ice… 😂
all the way from the earth to the moon,
flat space… that place where gravity magically ceases to exist, just because you get your rocket going sooOOOOOOoooooo fast
flat space!
even more absurd than flat earth?
a rocket can’t “escape gravity” any more than a bird can “escape gravity”
“what goes up, must come down” ~ unknown
sorry, but this is ALL science fiction
the slingshot effect?
“gravity assist”
the rocket equation
escape velocity
ALL of this moon landing science originates in the realm of science fiction
drill down into the history of these concepts, and you will find a creative science fiction writer…
so some clever writers write some science fiction, and others take those stories and develop them into intricate storylines, hire actors, make movies…
like santa claus and flying reindeer and …
the entire moon landing story was made in hollywood
by stanley kubrick
not only do we know that Kubrick filmed it,
we know HOW kubrick filmed it
here is the absolute BEST evidence that the moon landing was faked
its a NASA video,
posted by Smithsonian
its 37 seconds long
and its of the lunar lander “launching” off of the moon…
and the special effects are so horrible, they will make you lol
slow the video down and watch moment of launch
confetti comes out of the rocket 😂
and the reason that you’ve never seen this video before, is because it’s so horrible that it actually causes people to question the rest of moon landing 🤔
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9HQfauGJaTs
its the mother of all red pills
you are watching a movie
and if you actually understood science, as well as you assume you understand science…
and science fiction,
you’d already know this by now…
i’m not sure where you think you are shipping parts,
but i assure you they will never land on the moon,
or mars
😂 ….
If it's fake, why did they take 6 missions to get this shot right? If it's CGI, why not just nail the shot on the first mission?
This is aKtually a well known, well understood phenomenon in photography - what you're seeing is chromatic aberration which is worsened by converting an SSTV signal to NTSC. This is photography 101 stuff.
Edit: I was sortof wrong with my initial response. While true it is a type of chromatic abberation, it was not due to the lens used, but due to the fact that they used a color wheel to simulate color broadcast in SSTV within the bandwidth of a B/W TV signal. Check out the video, they explain it much better than I can https://youtu.be/fMHLvoWZfqQ (10:00 timestamp)
I have seen this video since I was a kid, it's been out there since it was published like 50 years ago
I guess we'll know within the next couple years, right?
I never called anyone The NY Times before. Sorry. That was a low blow.
that was pretty low, bro
How about getting everyone here sorted out before going somewhere else and shitting it all up?
Phucking clown world...ALL of it. ALL the time...24/7/365
u/#clownworld
Break out the Atlas Rocket, Lunar Module and the Lunar Rover and quit messing around with this new tech stuff that doesn't work!
Building that stuff would be like trying to build a 1967 Camaro today. All the suppliers and tools are long gone, and we just don't (sadly) build stuff the same way anymore. We have new players, new tools, new techniques, new materials, new designs
That doesn't work as well! According to you folks, the Moon landing 50 years ago, was the cats meow and IMHO, we would have still been going there with the old hardware has we ever been there! The whole story is BS!
I agree with what you're saying, we should have kept going back. But we didn't. We have other political agendas of the 1970s to blame for that, Vietnam war, space shuttle program/LEO, etc. Belee dat, if I was president at the time, we would have never stopped the moon missions
Feed the homeless Vets and stop this BS.
I think we should have SpaceX move in and takeover NASA. That alone would beca leap forward….
Then Elon can fire all these NASA Generals just taking up space and bring in his own people.