Yeah I understand what your saying. Valid point.

i dont know what you nerds are bitching about, but is kind of useless since the US never set foot on the moon.









































biggrin: trys to start a flame war biggrin:

I watched a show a few weeks ago where it said Kennedy hired Stanley Kubrick to create a fake lunar landing. Aparently they did. There was a photo of stanley kubrick on the floor of the moons surface, whcih was a set somewhere. So I don't doubt that that did happen. Also kennedy recorded a video of him saying the astronauts wern't able to get home and are stuck or died. I don't doubt that either. I've seen lots of people cite different reasons that they didn't land on the moon, but I believe they did.

And what we were talking about didn't really ahve all that much to do with the moon.

[quote="The Gay Blade!":5fed2]First, I'm not Simo or whoever. I laugh at interweb detectives.

Second, inertia defined by Newtons Laws is the property of an object to resist channge in its motion. In laymans terms, you get something moving, its going to keep moving until something acts against it. In most cases, that thing is friction. All this isnt important though when we're looking at a ship in space moving at obscene speeds. Your body, is still moving at the ridiculous amount of speed, and without gravity (such as that on Earth) you're fucked. Now even if we did have artificial gravity, we'd still have things to worry about. What an inertial dampner would so is cut the mass of this huge object so that itd be like you driving in a fast car (low inertia) compared to a megaton shutle (high inertia).

And if we built a train in a a vacuum and let it go, just pushing on it would set it off thered be no gradual built up and you WOULDNT be able to slow it down unless you wanted to get on the other side of it.

Oh, and an object in orbit is still affected by the pull of gravity. Youll notice when shuttles break out of orbit, they slow down, since their INERTIA is such that they dont need thrusters. So yes right now we are spinning at an incredible speed, but gravity hooks us up there.

Theres an incredibly longer answer I could give but I'd have to break out the old physics book from highschool but the simple answer is this - to achieve and maintain high speeds, you would need both something to reduce the inertia of the object you are traveling in, and some artificial gravity to make that ride smooth.[/quote:5fed2]

bullshit biggrin:

India is (or has) launching a space program. They hope to be in space by 2008. It was either this or nuke Pakistan.

I'm sure the hard working yet largely poverty-stricken
masses of India are tickled pink by that choice of expenditure... stupid:

LMFAO@eight ace

...erm, actually, that ones not meant to be a joke.

India's space program was born on Nov. 21, 1963.

They've sent payloads and satellites into space, but never a man. Perhaps they are looking to make manned missions by that time.

[quote="The Gay Blade!":c711e]First, I'm not Simo or whoever. I laugh at interweb detectives.

Second, inertia defined by Newtons Laws is the property of an object to resist channge in its motion. In laymans terms, you get something moving, its going to keep moving until something acts against it. In most cases, that thing is friction. All this isnt important though when we're looking at a ship in space moving at obscene speeds. Your body, is still moving at the ridiculous amount of speed, and without gravity (such as that on Earth) you're fucked. Now even if we did have artificial gravity, we'd still have things to worry about. What an inertial dampner would so is cut the mass of this huge object so that itd be like you driving in a fast car (low inertia) compared to a megaton shutle (high inertia).

And if we built a train in a a vacuum and let it go, just pushing on it would set it off thered be no gradual built up and you WOULDNT be able to slow it down unless you wanted to get on the other side of it.

Oh, and an object in orbit is still affected by the pull of gravity. Youll notice when shuttles break out of orbit, they slow down, since their INERTIA is such that they dont need thrusters. So yes right now we are spinning at an incredible speed, but gravity hooks us up there.

Theres an incredibly longer answer I could give but I'd have to break out the old physics book from highschool but the simple answer is this - to achieve and maintain high speeds, you would need both something to reduce the inertia of the object you are traveling in, and some artificial gravity to make that ride smooth.[/quote:c711e]

you obviously flunked Gen-phys 1 biggrin:
ACCELERATION is what causes you to be pushed back or forward in your seat, not speed. You can drive a spaceship up to obscene speeds and once the speed is constant you won't feel anything. Of course it is necessary to turn slowly because the change in direction essentially imitates an acceleration (this is what G-forces in a plane are).

[quote="The Gay Blade!":6b0d6]Omg I've been owned. No but seriously nowhere In my post did I make an assertion about accerlerationaton. As clearly said in my last post non-linear space flight at high speeds would not be feasible. This says nothing of the state of mass approaching speeds even close to the speed of light.

But hey keep going you're doing fine. Snark.[/quote:6b0d6]

But doesnt the warp field buffer us from the ravages of near light speed travel?

who cares about whats out there...what has landing on the moon done for earth?

Its very important , in my opinion anyway.

They are small steps towards the dicsovery of life on other planets. Which has enormous benifits.

Also we only have somewhere in the area of 5 million years before the sun goes super nova. We will have to be out of the solar system before then.

We'll all be long dead before the sun explodes.

[quote=pest]But doesnt the warp field buffer us from the ravages of near light speed travel?[/quote:fb102]

I believe thats what it does in Star Trek, but the device is actually utilized to bend the laws of physics - oOo: - so I suppose anything would be possible in it.

ownage ninty biggrin:

what about building a huge cannon and shooting parts or crew up to the space station or in orbit.

LOL!

that sounds more like a Monty Python thing than anything else biggrin:

From the Earth to the Moon by Jules Verne had people getting to the moon by a giant cannon. It was written in the 1800's. He got pretty much everything else right though.

actually some American gun expert wanted to build a cannon to launch sattellites (sp?) but neither NASA nor the military were interested so he went to build a supergun for Saddam (as means to fund his space-gun) and the Israeli intelligence service (Mossad) assasinated him.

[quote="Sgt Stryker":be0db]actually some American gun expert wanted to build a cannon to launch sattellites (sp?) but neither NASA nor the military were interested so he went to build a supergun for Saddam (as means to fund his space-gun) and the Israeli intelligence service (Mossad) assasinated him.[/quote:be0db]

yeah i remember that one. it was a gun that was laid out against the slope of a mountain. i believe france supplied the parts for that one. biggrin:

^^Yeah, there was an hbo movie on that I think.

[quote="Sgt Stryker":5bd91]actually some American gun expert wanted to build a cannon to launch sattellites (sp?) but neither NASA nor the military were interested so he went to build a supergun for Saddam (as means to fund his space-gun) and the Israeli intelligence service (Mossad) assasinated him.[/quote:5bd91]

Gerald Bull...and ya that movie owns. rock:

i dont think space travel will advance much unless scientists develope a new engine that doesnt run on jet fuel. if they really want to explore space, the most logical way would be to find a ship that can be in orbit for years and have a robot pilot it. there is no way we can fuel/feed a ship and her crew for the duration of an extensive space road trip.

nity=still pissed of that canuks still did not get in space by them selves sleeping:

Hey, we built your Space Arm for the space shuttles.

You're welcome. biggrin:

[quote="[2ndS.S.]Enigma":e1ee4]nity=still pissed of that canuks still did not get in space by them selves sleeping:[/quote:e1ee4]

I wasn't even alive when the space race was on.

Anyway, Canada was the third country after the Us and Russia to put a satellite into orbit, and we've had 8 or 9 astronauts in space. We were supposed to haev 2 more this year, but everything got pushed back beacuse of columbia. I'm not pissed at all. We don't haev the reources, money or support to go to space, although we can help in the field. We had an expiriment on a Japanese probe that lanched earlier this year to mars, but unfortunatley, somethings gone wrong with the probe so the Japanese are diverting it away from the planet,