Space Dudes

[kent_white]

8 minutes ago, Underpants said:

KW what opinion am I sharing exactly? I don't think that I've called you a loon or that you that you are wrong. You have assumed a lot of things about me. I could be on one big wind-up. I could be a moon landing disbeliever. I could be just taking a contrary stance. Thanks for letting me believe what I want to believe. I grant you the same.

By the way, you might be arguing. I'm not. There lies the problem. 

 

OK! 👍

[BobyBrno]

It’s like 1968 all over again!😉

Sat and watched the first one with my Dad. Just watched this one with my Son and Grandson.👍

 

[Zico]

1 hour ago, Underpants said:

For manned missions the absolute bare minimum required for progress would be to move a human 1 inch further away than before. In 50 years we've not done that. What do you say?

there's no where feasible for them to go

we can see and understand what is going on though, in our solar system, our galaxy, and other galaxies

and we have a space station, you can't surely be blind to the progress made there - when you compare it to the technology that took us to the moon

what do you base your criteria of progress on?

can't help thinking it's more science fiction, then actual science

[Tonge moor green jacket]

12 hours ago, Underpants said:

Ta! I was being obtuse but thanks for the breakdown. 

All the challenges a Mars journey would intake are ridiculous. The argument we can go to these places from a control centre in Florida is a fair one. But my point, which I have made many times before, is that manned progress in this field has not moved 1 inch further forward in over 55 years. When we had wooden ships and the world was flat some might say we had the same financial and risk obsticals then. If they could have sent a remote ship to Australia or the South pole from a desk at Greenwich they still would have sent some boots there later. And it wouldn't take them 55 years to do it. Setting foot on new worlds didn't stop then.

Manned progress has seen an international space station, numerous scientific experiments and developments.

Satellite communications, improved travel  and more recently re-usable craft that will help to reduce costs.

Those very same costs that made it unreasonable to keep going to the moon when there is arguably little point when a cost/benefit analysis is done.

Better value to be had by near earth, low orbit work.

The rover on Mars was another big step forward, but also very costly.

Without finding evidence of suitable resources, there will be little point keep going there neither.

[Underpants]

7 hours ago, Zico said:

there's no where feasible for them to go

we can see and understand what is going on though, in our solar system, our galaxy, and other galaxies

and we have a space station, you can't surely be blind to the progress made there - when you compare it to the technology that took us to the moon

what do you base your criteria of progress on?

can't help thinking it's more science fiction, then actual science

I've answered that question in my last reply to you. I've not said progress has stopped across the board. But thanks for telling me about the space station. 

[frank_spencer]

The biggest difference between now and then is we don't do stuff anymore just to do shit, there has to be a cost benefit to it.

[L/H White]

is the one that's been advertised about going to the moon, but it's not actually going to the moon as it isn't ready yet 

and they expect us to believe one landed on there 50 years ago

[Cheese]

11 minutes ago, L/H White said:

is the one that's been advertised about going to the moon, but it's not actually going to the moon as it isn't ready yet 

and they expect us to believe one landed on there 50 years ago

You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Edited April 2 by Cheese

[Dimron]

12 hours ago, SatanGreavsie said:

the co-pilot and navigator? Flight Lt Ronnie Dandelion (2 tours of the gulf war) and Emily Burdock, a teacher from Little Rock Arkansas, survivor of two school shootings.

I would prefer to fly with Ben Shaw 😀

[Dimron]

13 hours ago, Zico said:

They've built a space station that folk live on if that counts

I always thought that a permanently manned international space station would serve as a construction platform to assemble craft for deep space missions with the bits being ferried up using a shuttle vehicle.

But we seem to have reverted back to using a big old tower of liquid oxygen, hydrogen and a match

[Zico]

1 hour ago, Underpants said:

I've answered that question in my last reply to you. I've not said progress has stopped across the board. But thanks for telling me about the space station. 

Then I don't understand your frustration

There's currently nowhere where you can technically or physically send humans to beyond the moon

And that's going to be the case until we develop space ships that can travel at light speed which you can also steer

And once we do you could go to the edge of the solar system and back inside a day easy

But to get to the nearest star would still take 5 years 

Why send humans to Mars to look around and pick up dust when you can send a robot that pick up dust, analyse it and sends footage and data back

Waste of time and money

 

 

[L/H White]

58 minutes ago, Cheese said:

You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about.

i don't 

talk to me

[Cheese]

1 minute ago, L/H White said:

i don't 

talk to me

No point. If you think the moon landings were all massively elaborate hoaxes, you're a fucking idiot.

[kent_white]

8 minutes ago, Zico said:

Then I don't understand your frustration

There's currently nowhere where you can technically or physically send humans to beyond the moon

And that's going to be the case until we develop space ships that can travel at light speed which you can also steer

And once we do you could go to the edge of the solar system and back inside a day easy

But to get to the nearest star would still take 5 years 

Why send humans to Mars to look around and pick up dust when you can send a robot that pick up dust, analyse it and sends footage and data back

Waste of time and money

 

 

Exactly - the technology has moved on so much in terms of bots/drones/automated machines. Why would be send a sack of bones, blood, bones and emotions at great risk and cost - when we can send a machine that can do everything the human can do, at a fraction of the cost, very little risk, and no need to actually bring them back (unless we decide to). 

I'm sure we will get there eventually - but I imagine the groundwork will be done by machines. 

And it's massively unlikely that the human race is ever going to leave the solar system - the distances are too unimaginably vast, and the dangers are too unimaginably scary. 

Plus you start getting into some very weird physics if you start approaching anywhere near light speed - time dilation etc. And even that is a hard no from physics in the absence of things like warp drives or negative energy etc. Which are just theoretical at this point. 

I think we need to get used to the idea that Star Trek isn't happening, sadly.

[Zico]

10 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Exactly - the technology has moved on so much in terms of bots/drones/automated machines. Why would be send a sack of bones, blood, bones and emotions at great risk and cost - when we can send a machine that can do everything the human can do, at a fraction of the cost, very little risk, and no need to actually bring them back (unless we decide to). 

I'm sure we will get there eventually - but I imagine the groundwork will be done by machines. 

And it's massively unlikely that the human race is ever going to leave the solar system - the distances are too unimaginably vast, and the dangers are too unimaginably scary. 

Plus you start getting into some very weird physics if you start approaching anywhere near light speed - time dilation etc. And even that is a hard no from physics in the absence of things like warp drives or negative energy etc. Which are just theoretical at this point. 

I think we need to get used to the idea that Star Trek isn't happening, sadly.

aye

this guy nails it

 

 

 

 

 

View this post on Instagram

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A post shared by Jason Pargin (@jasonkpargin)

[L/H White]

37 minutes ago, Cheese said:

No point. If you think the moon landings were all massively elaborate hoaxes, you're a fucking idiot.

thicko?

[Tonge moor green jacket]

1 hour ago, L/H White said:

is the one that's been advertised about going to the moon, but it's not actually going to the moon as it isn't ready yet 

and they expect us to believe one landed on there 50 years ago

We've not won the fa cup in my lifetime, and are unlikely to do so any time soon, as we're not ready. 

On that basis, we've never won the fa cup before, and the 20s and "Sir Nat" was all a hoax.

[Cheese]

4 minutes ago, L/H White said:

thicko?

You do come across that way sometimes.

[Underpants]

15 minutes ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Manned progress has seen an international space station, numerous scientific experiments and developments.

Satellite communications, improved travel  and more recently re-usable craft that will help to reduce costs.

Those very same costs that made it unreasonable to keep going to the moon when there is arguably little point when a cost/benefit analysis is done.

Better value to be had by near earth, low orbit work.

The rover on Mars was another big step forward, but also very costly.

Without finding evidence of suitable resources, there will be little point keep going there neither.

FFS! Another itemised breakdown of our evolution from a square wheel. This was never my point.

 

 

[SatanGreavsie]

1 hour ago, kent_white said:

Exactly - the technology has moved on so much in terms of bots/drones/automated machines. Why would be send a sack of bones, blood, bones and emotions at great risk and cost - when we can send a machine that can do everything the human can do, at a fraction of the cost, very little risk, and no need to actually bring them back (unless we decide to). 

 

The last Mars rover collected a load to be launched back - and then they cancelled it. Bet it wishes it hadn't bothered now!

[Zico]

4 minutes ago, SatanGreavsie said:

The last Mars rover collected a load to be launched back - and then they cancelled it. Bet it wishes it hadn't bothered now!

Part of me thinks they should have sent two robots, male and female, so they didn't get bored

[Zico]

1 hour ago, kent_white said:

 

Why would be send a sack of bones, blood, bones and emotions at great risk and cost - when we can send a machine that can do everything the human can do, at a fraction of the cost, very little risk, and no need to actually bring them back (unless we decide to). 

 

On the off chance there's birds with three tits 

 

[Dimron]

43 minutes ago, Zico said:

On the off chance there's birds with three tits 

 

60 66 70 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

2 hours ago, Underpants said:

FFS! Another itemised breakdown of our evolution from a square wheel. This was never my point.

 

 

From your post it was.

Anyway, I won't be carrying on with any of this.

You've made your mind up, like the flat earthers. 

Crack on.

[green genie]

5 hours ago, L/H White said:

is the one that's been advertised about going to the moon, but it's not actually going to the moon as it isn't ready yet 

and they expect us to believe one landed on there 50 years ago

Health and safety innit. Buzz and co had balls of steel. Read Moondust which is collection of the stories of the astronauts who went.