General Space Thread

[KingKitty]

13 hours ago, Arnie said:

It costs a fortune. They were already pulling the rug during Apollo 12 from audience response, held on for the Apollo 13 emergency and tuned out in their droves for the rest. Nixon hated the space race and ever since nobody wanted to stump up the cash. We are going back real soon but sadly I fully expect lots of noise and silly claims to be made.

Are you aware how much money the US of A has sent to the Ukraine? Over 13 billion and counting. That's just to the Ukraine "war" effort which hasn't even been a year in the works. How about the cost for the Covidmania production? Not to mention various governments scams and money laundering schemes since the 1960's. There is always plenty of money.

 

And you think we are going back "real soon"?

 

You believe in NASA and what they tell the public. I don't. Doesn't seem like any point in going around in circles. If anyone here wants your opinion, all they have to do is turn to a text book or go to the NASA website. At least there you can get one of those NASA t-shirts that all the kids like to wear. I'm just never sure if it's sincere or ironic. You know kids!

[King James]

13 hours ago, alexa said:  Why's it cost them billions to produce these images ?   It costs around $1 bilion to research, design and develop a new car, but in that new car many components designed for previous models are used. If every component of the new car was actually developed specifically for that car the research design and development costs would balloon. Often car manufacturers lift huge amounts of parts from earlier models including the whole engine and drivetrain for example. No new car model from an established manufacturer is ever totally new, far from it. The device you used to post your question didn't cost anywhere near to make in comparison to what you paid for it. A some of the money you paid for it is soaked up by reasearch, design and development costs. Having worked on exclusive electronic projects for many years i know just how expensive it is to design and build a completely new one-off, especially when its built to JWT standards. You get what you pay for is the saying and the JWT is an amazing feat of engineering. Hope this helps  

[Arnie]

3 hours ago, KingKitty said:

There is always plenty of money.

 

Yes and it is always linked to public interest and demand. Besides, if the motivation to go back is to placate disbelievers, then that won't work because they'll just say the same thing about any of the missions. NASA decided to go the unmanned exploration route as a means to study planets such as Mars. The Moon has had a fair bit of study already, we landed there 6 times and after landing number 1, the US public wanted to know where all the money was going. It's always been a governmental thing. In your words, maybe they wanted to scam the public in other more efficient ways.

 

3 hours ago, KingKitty said:

And you think we are going back "real soon"?

 

Well yes. I think that:

 

NASA's Artemis 3 astronauts will explore 1 of these moon regions | Space

 

Hopefully in 2025. We have Artemis 1 just about to launch tomorrow to do bulk testing (if they can solve the teething issues with the new system). Did you not know about this?

 

3 hours ago, KingKitty said:

You believe in NASA and what they tell the public. I don't.

 

I don't really care what you believe but if you want to examine why all your proof is not proof, then post it and I'll explain it for you.

3 hours ago, KingKitty said:

Doesn't seem like any point in going around in circles. 

 

There aren't any circles to go in. You show your best proof and allow me to show you why it isn't. I've seen endless numbers of people calling NASA and other agencies into question, but not much evidence to support it.

 

3 hours ago, KingKitty said:

If anyone here wants your opinion, all they have to do is turn to a text book or go to the NASA website. At least there you can get one of those NASA t-shirts that all the kids like to wear. I'm just never sure if it's sincere or ironic. You know kids!

 

A very disengenuous statement. If they want yours should they just suggest everything is fake and not bother proving it. Besides, NASA doesn't bother debunking the various erroneous claims made, so you won't find them there. Space travel enthusiasts who understand the subject provide easy to understand debunks. If they want a scientific explanation such as the one I gave for Felix's spacejump, they would need to know what they were looking for, then that would mean they didn't need to look for it in the first place.

 

Are you a little worried about being proven wrong? What is your number one single piece of evidence? Waiting patiently for you to come up with the goods.

 

Edited September 2, 2022 by Arnie

[KingKitty]

4 hours ago, Arnie said:

 

Yes and it is always linked to public interest and demand. Besides, if the motivation to go back is to placate disbelievers, then that won't work because they'll just say the same thing about any of the missions. NASA decided to go the unmanned exploration route as a means to study planets such as Mars. The Moon has had a fair bit of study already, we landed there 6 times and after landing number 1, the US public wanted to know where all the money was going. It's always been a governmental thing. In your words, maybe they wanted to scam the public in other more efficient ways.

 

 

Well yes. I think that:

 

NASA's Artemis 3 astronauts will explore 1 of these moon regions | Space

 

Hopefully in 2025. We have Artemis 1 just about to launch tomorrow to do bulk testing (if they can solve the teething issues with the new system). Did you not know about this?

 

 

I don't really care what you believe but if you want to examine why all your proof is not proof, then post it and I'll explain it for you.

 

There aren't any circles to go in. You show your best proof and allow me to show you why it isn't. I've seen endless numbers of people calling NASA and other agencies into question, but not much evidence to support it.

 

 

A very disengenuous statement. If they want yours should they just suggest everything is fake and not bother proving it. Besides, NASA doesn't bother debunking the various erroneous claims made, so you won't find them there. Space travel enthusiasts who understand the subject provide easy to understand debunks. If they want a scientific explanation such as the one I gave for Felix's spacejump, they would need to know what they were looking for, then that would mean they didn't need to look for it in the first place.

 

Are you a little worried about being proven wrong? What is your number one single piece of evidence? Waiting patiently for you to come up with the goods.

 

Nothing disingenuous about my claim. You are merely stating text book examples of various things. Nothing wrong with that at all. The statements you've made on this and other similar threads, are indeed text book examples of things like physics, for instance. And that is your point. I am not sure how that is disingenuous? Your proof is in the texts books. and that is my point. Myself and others here already know your point of view on these topics because they come from "text books". That is how you know they are true and factual. That is how you prove others wrong. Is this really about you misspelling "disingenuous" to see if I'd say something?

 

I have no interest in your opinion nor interpretation of any NASA video that I believe to have been intentionally manipulated. Not out of fear of you debunking it, but because of your text book answers and explanations. Don't assume that myself and others haven't also considered the very same text book explanations, as well. Again, there are things I know from having worked in graphic arts, video editing, special effects, etc. All of which means, many of my counter explanations can also be found in "text books". Then of course, there's the fact that you can't spell the word, "disingenuous". Heck, even my Etch-A-Sketch has spell check. 

 

But, here we go around in circles, yet again. Even that you can't see, as you wish to argue about...excuse me, debate about the very same things over and over. That's the very definition of going in circles. This is now the second time I'm having to say, "we can just agree to disagree". You have no genuine interest in my opinions nor my personal expertise and knowledge. So I have no further interest in exchanging social intercourse with you on this topic, on this thread.

 

What more am I to say to you? I know it can be hard to say goodbye, but I think it's over between us. I'll still respect you and I really think we could still be good friends. 

 

All the best, 

Ramona

 

P. S., 

I'm keeping the NASA Sally Ride commemorative poster you gave me that I keep on the wall. It hides a nasty stain that's lying there. So don't you ask me to give it back. I know you know it doesn't mean that much to me.

Edited September 2, 2022 by KingKitty

[Arnie]

44 minutes ago, KingKitty said:

You are merely stating text book examples of various things. Nothing wrong with that at all. The statements you've made on this and other similar threads, are indeed text book examples of things like physics, for instance.

 

Please show me the text book example of explaining how a claimed anomaly isn't an anomaly at all because it is simply a merge between one piece of footage and another. This is absolutely NOT anything to do with any text book. It is an observation that eludes the claimant. Many of my posts do the same thing. They actually are informed observations that explain the so called anomaly. THIS is the fundamental issue, had the original claimant possessed that knowledge they would not have made the claim in the first place. Physics, whilst being in text books also requires relevance and application. Once again the absence of knowing about inertia for example led the poster to another erroneous claim - correcting their error in supposedly their search for truth should be applauded.

 

I withdraw the word disingenuous and thank you for the stupendous opportunity to re-acquire the correct spelling Instead I substitute the far better word(s) unfairly, inaccurately and needlessly provocative. What possible purpose can you have to interject, where I am quite rightly correcting erroneous claims and suggest that they are all in text books when they aren't. If you want to point out errors in any of my corrections then do so, otherwise they stand.

 

44 minutes ago, KingKitty said:

Myself and others here already know your point of view on these topics because they come from "text books". That is how you know they are true and factual.

 

I strongly disagree with the level of understanding you attribute to "others" particularly where they have demonstrated that they didn't have such understanding - hence the need for the simple explanation. None of what I post comes from a text book. Education itself may do, but doesn't that same education enable you to play the big cheese by pointing out a simple spelling mistake? Where in the text book or NASA site does it say that "hey, that criss-cross blue pattern screen isn't actually anything to do with CGI or bluescreen, it is a grid for recorded experiments!"

 

44 minutes ago, KingKitty said:

But, here we go around in circles, yet again. Even that you can't see, as you wish to argue about...excuse me, debate about the very same things over and over. That's the very definition of going in circles.

 

Which same things are you referring to? I am not aware of any debate on this forum where somebody has actually taken the time or effort to properly debate the main issue about these so called anomalies. Perhaps you would be kind enough to highlight where this circle began - sounds to me like you aren't keen to have your claims laid to rest.

 

44 minutes ago, KingKitty said:

This is now the second time I'm having to say, "we can just agree to disagree".

 

I have no problem with that, but that is not the second time.

 

44 minutes ago, KingKitty said:

You have no genuine interest in my opinions nor my personal expertise and knowledge. So I have no further interest in exchanging social intercourse with you on this topic, on this thread.

 

I fail to see how me asking you to provide examples to discuss leads you to that incorrect conclusion. Surely your very expertise and knowledge will enable you to explain why you so clearly think the way you do.

1 hour ago, KingKitty said:

because they come from "text books".

 

Did you intend to subvert your meaning by putting it in quotes, or was that an error?

[Bombadil]

Can we get back on topic please.

[Arnie]

On 8/10/2022 at 9:39 PM, sickofallthebollocks said:

 

Interview with Don Pettit in the Destiny lab mockup at the Minnesota science museum.

 

https://new.smm.org/space

[Arnie]

On 7/23/2022 at 4:40 AM, hardtruthspitta said:

Since the International Fake Space Station (ISS) has no running water, no sinks, no showers, or normal toilets, so you can imagine that this would pose a challenge for astronauts. Because according to their narratives, water would float away from the container in microgravity, drinking fluids in space require astronauts to suck liquid from a bag through a straw. These bags can be refilled at water stations through a low pressurized hose. Here's a link https://youtu.be/WPKZaI5ACC8...

 

 

Water will not float away from anything unless it has a force acting upon it. This "glass of water" experiment was perfectly explained on this link below, gently squeezed into a plastic container that the water adheres to - link is top right / grey arrow:

 

[sickofallthebollocks]

[TheConsultant]

Earth gravity, allows birds to fly but strong enough to keep the moon in orbit. That said, its field theory so actually its sat in a null between interacting bodies

[sickofallthebollocks]

[TheConsultant]

8 minutes ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

Yes, black budget projects require lying about the costs of things.

£15,000 for a toothbrush?

[Arnie]

20 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

 

 

The gravity is not "weak enough" to let astronauts jump. Every gravity pulls towards the mass and we see the astonaut being pulled down at 1.62m s².

 

As for it being strong enough to control the tides, the gravitational constant shows the small effect it has compared to the force felt on the surface.

 

[Arnie]

6 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

 

The LRV started and built from scratch includes the full development cost. An average car costs around a billion today.

Why Does It Cost So Much For Automakers To Develop New Models? | Autoblog

 

Why does your meme display the full development costs for the LRV whereas the disabled buggy only displays the cost per unit? A bit deceptive don't you think?

[Arnie]

6 minutes ago, KingKitty said:

Like the moon landings, that also comes from Kubrick.

 

False. The whole Kubrick thing was actually started as an April Fool's article, with the statement that he was such a perfectionist he shot it on location. Did the Lunar rocks come from him too

[alexa]

On 9/10/2022 at 12:25 AM, Arnie said:

Did the Lunar rocks come from him too

 

No they came from earth.

 

[Arnie]

2 hours ago, alexa said:

No they came from earth.

 

I strongly suspect that will be your last post on the matter, but eagerly await your explanation for:

• How the Apollo samples were able to show zero signs of terrestrial weathering from water and atmosphere.
• How they received solar isotopes only possible outside of atmosphere.
• How they show no signs of entry through atmosphere, fusion crust and heat fractures.
• Significantly how many show helium-3 on the outside edges.

In short your claim is impossible and proven as such. As a truth seeker, I would be concerned if what I believed could not be verified, so the inevitable lack of counter evidence you won't find should raise at least some of that concern.

[alexa]

5 hours ago, Arnie said:

 

I strongly suspect that will be your last post on the matter, but eagerly await your explanation for:

• How the Apollo samples were able to show zero signs of terrestrial weathering from water and atmosphere.
• How they received solar isotopes only possible outside of atmosphere.
• How they show no signs of entry through atmosphere, fusion crust and heat fractures.
• Significantly how many show helium-3 on the outside edges.

In short your claim is impossible and proven as such. As a truth seeker, I would be concerned if what I believed could not be verified, so the inevitable lack of counter evidence you won't find should raise at least some of that concern.

 

Well instead of me proving it to you, why don't you prove to me that that they are luna rocks, any one can repeat from a text book. They have these luna rocks somewhere in Amsterdam & I'm sure that they have been proven to be fake.

[screamingeagle]

On 8/30/2022 at 4:48 PM, sickofallthebollocks said:

how did they locate the debris,and who says it's official ?

 

 

[Arnie]

44 minutes ago, alexa said:

 

Well instead of me proving it to you, why don't you prove to me that that they are luna rocks

 

What would you accept as evidence? I say that in all futility given the way you do not accept completely obvious visual evidence about the shape of the planet. There have been many thousands of geologist and petrologist reports and analyses over the 50 years since these samples were brought back from the Moon. As I said, the analyses form a consistent and irrefutable conclusion that these are not Earth rocks, not meteorites and must have arrived here without passing through the Earth's atmosphere.

 

44 minutes ago, alexa said:

any one can repeat from a text book.

 

The conclusion doesn't really come from a text book, it comes from the collective analyses of the finest geologists and petrologists on the planet. From an old post on this very forum:

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________

 

Apollo samples prove beyond any doubt that Man has been to the Moon. Over six missions, 842lbs of samples, including 3m cores were retrieved.

Lunar samples that have been peer reviewed by thousands of the world's finest geologists and petrologists. The samples have substantial solar isotope impregnation, many contain large volumes of micro-meteorite impact craters. They collectively are devoid of any contamination from oxygen, water or nitrogen found on Earth, have no evidence of fragmentation or fusion crusts from entry through atmosphere. They show evidence of formation in a lower gravity environment. They are entirely dry as a bone, with the only hydroxyl/water type substances existing within low gravity formed volcanic beads or apatite crystals. They cannot by any possibility be meteorites. They cannot be from Earth. This leaves the only explanation as retrieval off world.

meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm

"Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy doesn't know much about rocks. The Apollo samples are just too good. They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that's better than any story any conspirator could have conceived. I've studied lunar rocks and soils for 45+ years and I couldn't make even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in “the Government “ could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like. Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity. Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts. Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.) It was easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks than it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth. "

Summary:

1. Geologists have been examining Apollo samples for 50 years, there is complete agreement that they are authentic and from the Moon.

2. The samples are impregnated with billions of years of solar exposure causing isotopes impossible to produce on Earth.

3. It is impossible for a rock to reside on Earth without it interacting with the gasses or liquids it comes into contact with.

4. It is impossible for a rock to enter the Earth's atmosphere and still retain its outer layers. Apollo rocks have strong Helium 3 on their outer layers.

5. Lunar samples have in some cases been older than any known Earth rock.

6. The Apollo samples contain only water encased within volcanic beads showing formation in lower gravity.

7. The Apollo rocks contain tiny craters far smaller than any man made gun could produce! They also show redistribution effects called "gardening".

8. The Apollo samples have no terrestrial weathering they simply cannot be from Earth.

9. Apollo samples show evidence for a whole variety of meteorite impact damage.

10. They are bone dry with water-type material encased within volcanic beads formed in low gravity and apatite crystals.

11. It's been suggested that zap pits were created by guns that have limitations of 0.1mm projectiles when the zap pits are in the region of 50 microns (2/1000 inch) in diameter!

12. Apollo samples show evidence of formation with essentially no free oxygen.

13. Isotope ratios on Apollo rocks are different to anything found on Earth.

 

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

YOUR PREVIOUS RESPONSE TO THIS WAS:             "Yeah yeah right". 

 

 

44 minutes ago, alexa said:

They have these luna rocks somewhere in Amsterdam & I'm sure that they have been proven to be fake.

 

It was a gift from the Foreign secretary to an ex-prime-minister taken from their catalogue. If you wish to discuss this yet again, a simple search on "Middendorf " will give you all the data you need on this false claim. Or just click this old post, where some very clever person has already answered it:

https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php?/topic/5907-fake-moon-landings/page/4/#comment-166576

 

Edited September 11, 2022 by Arnie

[Arnie]

7 hours ago, screamingeagle said:

how did they locate the debris,and who says it's official ?

 

https://orbitaldebris.jsc.nasa.gov/measurements/radar.html

 

I suppose they could be all making it up for shits and giggles.

[hardtruthspitta]

if none of us have been there, do yo not have to be crazy for pretending to know what is up there?

 

or should we trust the science?

[Arnie]

7 hours ago, hardtruthspitta said:

if none of us have been there, do yo not have to be crazy for pretending to know what is up there?

 

or should we trust the science?

 

That is a false dichotomy. It's not a mater of trusting science or none of us has been up there. You trust evidence.

 

If you were happy to trust videos that appeared to show fakery, why do you now maintain that mistrust of events even when I have shown them to be mistakes and poor observations? The amount of evidence for the ISS alone is crazy in terms of establishing what amounts to truth. You can mistrust science where it is still postulating, but you can't mistrust it when it has been proven over and over again. We aren't even talking about science as such, we are talking about human achievement and the evidence supporting it.

[sickofallthebollocks]

23 hours ago, screamingeagle said:

how did they locate the debris,and who says it's official ?

Apologies for the delay replying to you SE,  I remember seeing something about debris around Earth a long while back - I think it was here:
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html
It's not strictly Satellite debris as such  - more - debris that satellites can apparently collide with.
According to them, there are 27K pieces of space junk, large enough to threaten space missions.   It then confusingly describes that there are also 23K items of man made shite over the size of a softball.
And over half a million the size of a marble up to 0.4 of an inch or larger - they also confusingly describe that there are also up to 100 million pieces of junk up to the size of 0.4 inch and larger?
And that after all this, there are even smaller sized particles of junk up to 0.000039 of an inch.
It then goes on to describe that previous missions to launch satellites to space by other countries, Russian satellites colliding with US spacecraft, and a failed french mission added thousands more pieces of junk that satellites can collide with.
Of course - I don't (any longer) prescribe to any more of this.  It's all bullshit in my opinion.  I just liked the meme that showed NASAs uninteruppted view of earth despite all the millions and millions of debris 'supposedly' deposited up there.

Arnie:  (I mean: comedytime) You're on ignore, don't bother replying.

 

 

 

[Arnie]

4 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

According to them, there are 27K pieces of space junk, large enough to threaten space missions.   I

it then confusingly describes that there are also 23K items of man made shite over the size of a softball.
And over half a million the size of a marble up to 0.4 of an inch or larger - they also confusingly describe that there are also up to 100 million pieces of junk up to the size of 0.4 inch and larger?
And that after all this, there are even smaller sized particles of junk up to 0.000039 of an inch

 

Sphere Solve for surface area = 4πr² 

 

Earth is 6,371 km radius. So surface area is 510 MILLION square kilometres. So in orbit that surface area increases and we would encounter one of these tiny fragments maybe 1 in 100 square kilometres? So your observation seems to be kind of insiognificant compared to the size of the planet.

 

4 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

Of course - I don't (any longer) prescribe to any more of this.  It's all bullshit in my opinion.  I just liked the meme that showed NASAs uninteruppted view of earth despite all the millions and millions of debris 'supposedly' deposited up there.

 Well it's an interesting opinion, but sadly not very informed.

4 hours ago, sickofallthebollocks said:

Arnie:  (I mean: comedytime) You're on ignore, don't bother replying.

 

I really won't be able to tell the difference and I am not replying for your sake, just for other people who may think your post has any merit. Clearly it doesn't.