Space Dudes

[Zico]

1 hour ago, Underpants said:

You wouldn't make a good defence solicitor. You've told me things and supplied me with information that Im aware of. Thanks. But you have slightly changed your tune with your progress calculator. There are plenty of ways we measure progress. I get that. But none of us are rocket scientist or rocket engineers. I'm sure if these guys were in this conversation they would bore us all to death with the heat sensor light for the Artemis 2 toilet. But the big glaring lack of advancement to Mr. Joe Average on planet earth is that it took longer to get there. That is a fact. Ages ago on here I was asked what I would like to see with regard manned space travel? I said going to other ther side of the moon would be a start. That has just happened. Even taking into account all the advancements in tech. I find it odd that it was a slower drive.

Maybe because of the price of fuel they had to put it on cruise control because of the cost 🤔

I've not changed my tune at all

if you're aware of all the things I've pointed out, then I don't get why you are frustrated at your perceived lack of progress because as far as I can see we've made loads since we first landed on the moon 

and I still can't believe you think it was "slower" to get there this time given I pointed out, and you may already know, they were in high space orbit for a day before proceeding doing tests on life support equipment, and they used the moons gravitational pull rather than putting their foot down when getting back, because artemis is bigger, heavier and carrying more equipment, so fuel efficiency was a key factor 

apollo was all about getting there and back asap, and proving they could do it

artemis is part of a much bigger plan to actually start doing things on the moon other than going for a day trip

it was all about safety and systems testing

if you find it odd it was slower, it's because you don't know anything about the artemis project and viewing it literally as a trip to the moon and back like it was first time

two totally different missions, not really comparable, other than the destination

[kent_white]

14 hours ago, Underpants said:

I can only go off what you wrote. You said progress isn't measured in distance. I said it is one of the  components in measuring progress. And are you seriously telling me that the extra horse power in the apollo missiond back in the 60s was because of the Soviets?  It was a space race but it wasn't one were a few extra MPH would have made a difference. Anyway at least we went slower back to the moon in a slightly bigger and nicer boat. Might have to wait another 50 years before we set foot on the moon, or anywhere else for that matter, again. That's progress for ya!

There are lots of reasons Artemis took longer and it was deliberate.

Specifically things like more rigorous testing and validation protocols, longer trajectories that use less fuel (so they're more efficient) and better life support and crew comfort.

Safer more methodical exploration IS progress. 

And we don't measure spacecraft power in 'horsepower'. That's used for mechanical systems. We use thrust and other metrics for rockets. 

[fatolive]

5 hours ago, Underpants said:

The reason it takes the same time is that we have speed limits to obey and the roads are packed with folk doing the same. But we can get to Blackpool quicker if we want. As far as I know there's not a million other people going to the moon and there's no coppers or speed limit in space.

another factor: 

distance isn’t fixed 
The moon is 40 odd thousand km further away from earth for this latest mission than it was for the moon landing mission . 
 
 

[Cheese]

38 minutes ago, fatolive said:

another factor: 

distance isn’t fixed 
The moon is 40 odd thousand km further away from earth for this latest mission than it was for the moon landing mission . 
 
 

There were SIX successful moon landing missions.

[Sweep]

16 minutes ago, Cheese said:

There were SIX successful moon landing missions.

I still find it amazing how they did all that, with such limited technology. Brave chaps them astronauts 

[Cheese]

5 hours ago, Zico said:

I've not changed my tune at all

if you're aware of all the things I've pointed out, then I don't get why you are frustrated at your perceived lack of progress because as far as I can see we've made loads since we first landed on the moon 

and I still can't believe you think it was "slower" to get there this time given I pointed out, and you may already know, they were in high space orbit for a day before proceeding doing tests on life support equipment, and they used the moons gravitational pull rather than putting their foot down when getting back, because artemis is bigger, heavier and carrying more equipment, so fuel efficiency was a key factor 

apollo was all about getting there and back asap, and proving they could do it

artemis is part of a much bigger plan to actually start doing things on the moon other than going for a day trip

it was all about safety and systems testing

if you find it odd it was slower, it's because you don't know anything about the artemis project and viewing it literally as a trip to the moon and back like it was first time

two totally different missions, not really comparable, other than the destination

 

[kent_white]

5 hours ago, Cheese said:

 

They should be using videos like this to teach maths to kids at school. THIS is why you study it. 

[Underpants]

5 hours ago, fatolive said:

another factor: 

distance isn’t fixed 
The moon is 40 odd thousand km further away from earth for this latest mission than it was for the moon landing mission . 
 
 

Where were you at the beginning of this conversation? 😁. That info would have saved everyone a lot of time. An extra 40k miles further explains more than all this nonsense these pseudo quantum rockets scientists did with their googled validation protocols, gravitational pulls and driving to Blackpool analogies. 

Fatolive talking to Undies, @Zico@kent_white 👍 

 

[Ani]

5 hours ago, kent_white said:

They should be using videos like this to teach maths to kids at school. THIS is why you study it. 

In case you need to plot the flight path of a space vehicle ? 

[Cheese]

1 hour ago, Ani said:

In case you need to plot the flight path of a space vehicle ? 

Someone has to do it. 🤷‍♂️

[fatolive]

8 hours ago, Cheese said:

There were SIX successful moon landing missions.

Yes I know . Not sure why you’re telling me that as if it’s a new revelation? 
 

I was just saying the moon is further away now than it was in the first one.

edit. Apologies, read my first post and I didn’t say 1st moon landing so I can see why you thought I may be thick enough to think there was only one 👍

Edited April 10 by fatolive
.

[Zico]

8 hours ago, Underpants said:

Where were you at the beginning of this conversation? 😁. That info would have saved everyone a lot of time. An extra 40k miles further explains more than all this nonsense these pseudo quantum rockets scientists did with their googled validation protocols, gravitational pulls and driving to Blackpool analogies. 

Fatolive talking to Undies, @Zico@kent_white 👍 

 

simple explanations suit simple folk it seems

unfortunately for you though, the extra distance doesn't make all the difference when you are travelling between 5000km and 40000 km per hour

the day in orbit and the trajectory used to come back, both deliberate, are why it took longer - it was planned to be a 10 day mission like the first apollo was planned to be a 8 day mission, like others were planned to be 12

think maybe it's time for you to bow out this conversation and get back to star trek

 

[Ani]

3 hours ago, Cheese said:

Someone has to do it. 🤷‍♂️

Yeah but we have boat loads turning up that can do it for us. 

If your only reason for doing Maths at school is just in case there is a space mission that needs to be sorted you are pretty niche. 
 

I helped my step daughter with her Maths GCSE if they are relying on her to calculate the route home and re entry point they will be boldly going where no man has been before. 

[kent_white]

14 hours ago, Ani said:

In case you need to plot the flight path of a space vehicle ? 

No - to show kids what the end game is. If you study hard and understand the concepts - this is the kind of thing you could end up achieving. 

I'd have been massively inspired by something like this at the age of 11. 

[kent_white]

15 hours ago, Underpants said:

Where were you at the beginning of this conversation? 😁. That info would have saved everyone a lot of time. An extra 40k miles further explains more than all this nonsense these pseudo quantum rockets scientists did with their googled validation protocols, gravitational pulls and driving to Blackpool analogies. 

Fatolive talking to Undies, @Zico@kent_white 👍 

 

Oooh you've got us there underpants. 

Us idiots doing all that reading and stuff! 🤣

[Underpants]

1 hour ago, kent_white said:

Oooh you've got us there underpants. 

Us idiots doing all that reading and stuff! 🤣

😁

You're easy like a Sunday morning.

[Underpants]

7 hours ago, Zico said:

simple explanations suit simple folk it seems

unfortunately for you though, the extra distance doesn't make all the difference when you are travelling between 5000km and 40000 km per hour

the day in orbit and the trajectory used to come back, both deliberate, are why it took longer - it was planned to be a 10 day mission like the first apollo was planned to be a 8 day mission, like others were planned to be 12

think maybe it's time for you to bow out this conversation and get back to star trek

 

You've gone off on another one Zico 😁.

I just found it surprising that it took longer. Ive only got myself to blame but I didn't really need an in-depth explanation. Nonetheless thanks for the leg work you put in.

[Ani]

1 hour ago, Underpants said:

You've gone off on another one Zico 😁.

I just found it surprising that it took longer. Ive only got myself to blame but I didn't really need an in-depth explanation. Nonetheless thanks for the leg work you put in.

Why did you think the speed limit in space had been changed ? 

[Spider]

10 minutes ago, Ani said:

Why did you think the speed limit in space had been changed ? 

Everybody needs to do their bit to save money

[Zico]

1 hour ago, Underpants said:

You've gone off on another one Zico 😁.

I just found it surprising that it took longer. Ive only got myself to blame but I didn't really need an in-depth explanation. Nonetheless thanks for the leg work you put in.

This all started when you said you were frustrated that man went to the moon in 1969 and hasn't been any further since

if you truly believe that, then an in depth explanation is the only way to convince you otherwise

I hope that's still not the case after all the effort me and @kent_white have put in

If I'd have thought I could've put it to bed by saying the moon was further away this time I'd have took the easy way out

[Underpants]

1 hour ago, Zico said:

This all started when you said you were frustrated that man went to the moon in 1969 and hasn't been any further since

if you truly believe that, then an in depth explanation is the only way to convince you otherwise

I hope that's still not the case after all the effort me and @kent_white have put in

If I'd have thought I could've put it to bed by saying the moon was further away this time I'd have took the easy way out

But until this week they hadn't.

Frustrated? Nah. Curious.

[bolty58]

10 hours ago, Zico said:

simple explanations suit simple folk it seems

unfortunately for you though, the extra distance doesn't make all the difference when you are travelling between 5000km and 40000 km per hour

the day in orbit and the trajectory used to come back, both deliberate, are why it took longer - it was planned to be a 10 day mission like the first apollo was planned to be a 8 day mission, like others were planned to be 12

think maybe it's time for you to bow out this conversation and get back to star trek

 

See what happens when they move to Queensland? They all become stroppy fuckers and develop red necks.

[Cheese]

9 hours ago, Underpants said:

But until this week they hadn't.

Frustrated? Nah. Curious.

Yes they had. Nasa landed men on the moon in July 1969, Feb 1971, July 1971, April 1972, and December 1972.

Edited April 11 by Cheese

[Cheese]

This is fucking mind blowing.