Live rocket launch in 10mins here

 

http://www.spacex.com/webcast/

4 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Well you don't HAVE to have any evidence to make an argument. It just makes your argument sound a lot less shit if you do.

Again - the answers to all your questions are all well documented. 

There's not really been any need to send anyone back to the moon. It's extremely expensive and unless you're going to establish a base there or something there's not really much point. It's a big rock. Apollo missions were costing about 4% of GDP at one point. 

The next realistic step is Mars. We didn't have the technology to get there in the 60's or 70's. Nowadays it's not beyond the realms of possibility. 

I'm still not really sure why the US are so keen on returning to the moon - other than it was a Trump vanity project because he wanted to be thought of like JFK. There's better things NASA could be spending their money on - but then I don't hold the purse strings. 

I wasn't asking why we haven't gone back to the moon. I was asking, after that exceptional acceleration in technology over a 66 year period, why has maned travel ground to a complete stand still? Let's say we definitely did go to the moon then 55 years is a long hiatus to do nothing. Financing frontier exploration has never really been an issue over the centuries.

I think that is a valid question.

Manned travel hasn't stopped, but it's been channelled in different directions- like the iss. A better use of resources for research and development. 

You go to the moon, identify it as a rock, but of itself there's not much else to do. We've got samples of it to analyse. 

A lot of other research can be done orbiting the earth, so it's far more cost effective, and quicker to do stuff there.

The long distance stuff is just that, and making it manned makes it virtually impossible, so pointless. Just send automated stuff.

All the evidence/info is available.

31 minutes ago, Zico said:

It's because the next nearest planet to visit is fucking miles away and would take several months to get there   

You need to understand space shuttles are small cramped capsules and not like the USS enterprise or millennium falcon 

And we've built a space station where people live in that time 

We've also sent a robot to mars to do everything a person could do 

We're not going to ever live on mars so there's really no reason to send anyone there anyway 

We got from walking to driving a car to flying to the nearest celestial body in the blink of an eye. Human advancement has not moved one centimeter since. 

7 minutes ago, Underpants said:

I wasn't asking why we haven't gone back to the moon. I was asking, after that exceptional acceleration in technology over a 66 year period, why has maned travel ground to a complete stand still? Let's say we definitely did go to the moon then 55 years is a long hiatus to do nothing. Financing frontier exploration has never really been an issue over the centuries.

I think that is a valid question.

Well partly because we can operate things remotely now so we don't need manned craft. And it's also a lot cheaper if you don't need to add three astronauts and the equipment to keep them alive to the payload. 

I'm not sure where you're coming from with the 'frontier explanation' point. Getting human beings to Mars and back would be exponentially more difficult and dangerous than sailing across the Atlantic in 1492. Even with our tech. 

And even if you did have a decent point - you're conflating two arguments if you're suggesting not landing on Mars somehow  casts doubt on the moon landings.

1 minute ago, Underpants said:

We got from walking to driving a car to flying to the nearest celestial body in the blink of an eye. Human advancement has not moved one centimeter since. 

🤣🤣🤣

Fucking hell. You really don't believe we're more technologically advanced now than we were in the 60's? 

Surely you're taking the piss? 

Until we find a way of increasing speed of travel, mankind isn't going anywhere else in a hurry.

I see one mon has come up with an idea of supersonic travel across the Atlantic with a fusion powered aircraft, but as we've not conquered that energy source yet, it may be sometime before we're using it in space!

4 minutes ago, kent_white said:

🤣🤣🤣

Fucking hell. You really don't believe we're more technologically advanced now than we were in the 60's? 

Surely you're taking the piss? 

You spent all those months injecting folk with eye of newt, wing of bat...

Just now, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Until we find a way of increasing speed of travel, mankind isn't going anywhere else in a hurry.

I see one mon has come up with an idea of supersonic travel across the Atlantic with a fusion powered aircraft, but as we've not conquered that energy source yet, it may be sometime before we're using it in space!

I know - it's quite depressing really. 

There's an extremely good chance that we'll never get to another solar system as a species. It's like some cruel cosmic joke - being able to see it all but knowing that in all likelihood it might always be out of reach.

1 minute ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

You spent all those months injecting folk with eye of newt, wing of bat...

I know - that great 'untested vaccine' that was going to give us all those side effects and be the end of mankind! 😁

9 minutes ago, kent_white said:

I know - it's quite depressing really. 

There's an extremely good chance that we'll never get to another solar system as a species. It's like some cruel cosmic joke - being able to see it all but knowing that in all likelihood it might always be out of reach.

We need some big fuck off engines on the earth so we can fuck off once the sun nears the end of its life and becomes a red giant.

We can sail around to our hearts content then, have a gander at some other systems, pop down a black hole or two, all from the comfort of our living rooms.

57 minutes ago, Underpants said:

We got from walking to driving a car to flying to the nearest celestial body in the blink of an eye. Human advancement has not moved one centimeter since. 

Biologically speaking it's been difficult to send a human anywhere beyond the moon 

We've sent rockets/satellites/cameras to the outer reaches of the solar system and beyond and got them to send pictures back 

Likewise we've developed telescopes that show us what's out there and beyond 

So i guess the question is 

What do you think we should've done that we've not yet?

13 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Well partly because we can operate things remotely now so we don't need manned craft. And it's also a lot cheaper if you don't need to add three astronauts and the equipment to keep them alive to the payload. 

I'm not sure where you're coming from with the 'frontier explanation' point. Getting human beings to Mars and back would be exponentially more difficult and dangerous than sailing across the Atlantic in 1492. Even with our tech. 

And even if you did have a decent point - you're conflating two arguments if you're suggesting not landing on Mars somehow  casts doubt on the moon landings.

Doubt creates questions. I was talking about human advancement. It seemed very fast to get to the moon. I'm saying there's an argument to be had. You said I need evidence, then said, with a caveat, I don't need evidence. Your ad-hoc rule changes confuse matters. I don't think I'll be far wrong to say you are 100% sure they did happend. I can also be 100% sure that not every one is convinced they did. You can make your own mind up on where I stand.

 

2 minutes ago, Zico said:

Biologically speaking it's been difficult to send a human anywhere beyond the moon 

We've sent rockets/satellites/cameras to the outer reaches of the solar system and beyond and got them to send pictures back 

Likewise we've developed telescopes that show us what's out there and beyond 

So i guess the question is 

What do you think we should've done that we've not yet?

Don't get me going on telescope images. Don't think I've seen one that hasn't been manipulated. I read somewhere that esteemed astronomers said the universe smells like raspberries. You will probably believe them because they said so.

12 minutes ago, Underpants said:

Don't get me going on telescope images. Don't think I've seen one that hasn't been manipulated. I read somewhere that esteemed astronomers said the universe smells like raspberries. You will probably believe them because they said so.

Ok 

But beyond the moon where do you think humans should've travelled to by now

And why

19 minutes ago, Underpants said:

Don't get me going on telescope images. Don't think I've seen one that hasn't been manipulated. I read somewhere that esteemed astronomers said the universe smells like raspberries. You will probably believe them because they said so.

It’s because the earth is flat

10 minutes ago, Zico said:

Ok 

But beyond the moon where do you think humans should've travelled to by now

And why

I don't know. Maybe the other side of the moon would be a start. 

13 hours ago, Underpants said:

Don't get me going on telescope images. Don't think I've seen one that hasn't been manipulated. I read somewhere that esteemed astronomers said the universe smells like raspberries. You will probably believe them because they said so.

They didn't just say, oh it smells of raspberries.  They identified a chemical substance using spectroscopy, this compound is also found here on earth, and is responsible for the smell of Raspberries.  So they have hypothesised that given this compound is present in an area of space, and given we know how we sense that compound, there is a good chance if we were ever in that part of space we may smell Raspberries. 

This is sound reasoning using the evidence which has been gathered. So yes I do believe this. 

19 minutes ago, CambridgeBWFC said:

They didn't just say, oh it smells of raspberries.  They identified a chemical substance using spectroscopy, this compound is also found here on earth, and is responsible for the smell of Raspberries.  So they have hypothesised that given this compound is present in an area of space, and given we know how we sense that compound, there is a good chance if we were ever in that part of space we may smell Raspberries. 

This is sound reasoning using the evidence which has been gathered. So yes I do believe this. 

He'd believe it if it smelled of bullshit.

40 minutes ago, CambridgeBWFC said:

They didn't just say, oh it smells of raspberries.  They identified a chemical substance using spectroscopy, this compound is also found here on earth, and is responsible for the smell of Raspberries.  So they have hypothesised that given this compound is present in an area of space, and given we know how we sense that compound, there is a good chance if we were ever in that part of space we may smell Raspberries. 

This is sound reasoning using the evidence which has been gathered. So yes I do believe this. 

Hypothesised is just a fancy scientific word for guess. 

Anyway I have no issue with folk believing whatever they want.

13 hours ago, Underpants said:

Doubt creates questions. I was talking about human advancement. It seemed very fast to get to the moon. I'm saying there's an argument to be had. You said I need evidence, then said, with a caveat, I don't need evidence. Your ad-hoc rule changes confuse matters. I don't think I'll be far wrong to say you are 100% sure they did happend. I can also be 100% sure that not every one is convinced they did. You can make your own mind up on where I stand.

 

Doubt does create questions. The key is to actually trying to find the (often boring) answers to them - rather than fill in what you don't understand with conspiracy theories because it's less effort and feels a bit sexy and exciting. 

I've not changed any rules. I've just said you need some evidence of you want to present a convincing argument. Otherwise you can still present an argument. It'll just be an unconvincing one, like the argument that man didn't really land on the moon. 

I'm presuming that you don't think men have been to the moon. Despite admitting you no evidence. Which is a weird position to take as far as I'm concerned. 

13 hours ago, Underpants said:

Don't get me going on telescope images. Don't think I've seen one that hasn't been manipulated. I read somewhere that esteemed astronomers said the universe smells like raspberries. You will probably believe them because they said so.

What do you mean by 'manipulated'?

They didn't say "the universe smells like raspberries". They said that there is a large dust cloud in the middle of the milky way that's made from ethyl formate. And ethyl formate is the chemical company that gives raspberries their taste. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethyl_formate

19 minutes ago, Underpants said:

Hypothesised is just a fancy scientific word for guess. 

Anyway I have no issue with folk believing whatever they want.

I'm with Brian Cox on whether people can believe whatever they want! 

"The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it. The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!"

1 hour ago, CambridgeBWFC said:

They didn't just say, oh it smells of raspberries.  They identified a chemical substance using spectroscopy, this compound is also found here on earth, and is responsible for the smell of Raspberries.  So they have hypothesised that given this compound is present in an area of space, and given we know how we sense that compound, there is a good chance if we were ever in that part of space we may smell Raspberries. 

This is sound reasoning using the evidence which has been gathered. So yes I do believe this. 

I should have read this before I wrote my post! Perfectly articulated though! 😁

44 minutes ago, kent_white said:

 

I'm presuming that you don't think men have been to the moon. Despite admitting you no evidence. Which is a weird position to take as far as I'm concerned. 

A bit like scientist you can presume or hypothesise all you want. There's an argument to be had about the moon landings. You have proved this correct. But I have never said I agree with the conspiracy theories involving the moon landings. I've asked questions and raised points about it. You and others have been all over the internet collecting information for me. Thanks for that. I'm a cynic if you think I'm a tin hat soldier that's fine.

 

 

Edited October 2, 20223 yr by Underpants

1 minute ago, Underpants said:

A bit like scientist you can presume or hypothesise all you want. There's an argument to be had about the moon landings. You have proved this correct. But I have never said I agree with the conspiracy theories involving the moon landings. I've asked questions and raised points about it. You and others have been all over the internet collecting information for me. Thanks for that. I'm a cynic if you think I'm a tin hat soldier that's fine.

 

 

So just to clear this up for us. Do you believe that man landed on the moon?