Nasa administrator announces plans to ‘go to the moon and stay’

a reply to: Arbitrageur

An uncle, who retired with very high seniority (if not top) from Pan Am, had a lot to do with the development of inertial navigation systems for aircraft. He had a cool appreciation trophy on his desk.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The denial is strong when flat earthers refuse to believe their own data collected by an instrument they paid $20,000 for, and continue to be wrong.

There's another experiment at the end of the movie. To test the curvature "theory." I won't give away the result but the experimenter's last words as the credits start to roll are "Huh, interesting."

Too bad Turbo turned this into a flat Earth thread.

This would happen no matter who the president would be. We are in the new space race and only stupid or poor won't try to get their own slice of the pie.

a reply to: turbonium1

They forgot the ISS was supposed to be speeding around Earth at over 17,000 mph, which makes it even funnier to look at.

Who forgot that?

Yes, objects have mass and density, air has virtually none, so objects fall through air. The objects do not get pulled down to the Earth's surface, from a force within Earth.

How come they fall down then, ie towards the Earth? Why don't they "fall" in some other random direction?

When you start with a belief in Earth as a ball, speeding through space, then of course, you must account for everything else inherently involved within that argument, otherwise, the whole argument does not hold up (which it doesn't)...

But that is not a "belief" - it is a proven scientific fact. Your Flat Earth, now that is a "belief".

originally posted by: oldcarpy
How come they fall down then, ie towards the Earth? Why don't they "fall" in some other random direction?

Because the objects are falling straight down through air, obviously. There is no other direction they would fall, except for straight down.

Objects don't always fall to Earth, either. They fall until they hit solid objects below them, as well. A rooftop, for example, stops the fall. Not the Earth's surface.

No force pulls objects to Earth.

a reply to: turbonium1

Yes. They fall down, towards Earth because: gravity. You can prove Newton wrong, can you?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: oldcarpy
How come they fall down then, ie towards the Earth? Why don't they "fall" in some other random direction?

Because the objects are falling straight down through air, obviously. There is no other direction they would fall, except for straight down.

But why?

If I kick a football vertically up into air, why does it slow down and then reverse direction and start accelerating towards the ground?

originally posted by: 727Sky
Nasa administrator announces plans to ‘go to the moon and stay’

This is complete fantasy. The whole ISS space station would have to be on the moon, in order for people to be on the moon. You can not be on the moon in a Apollo moon lander, you need all the facilities of the ISS space station. Foremost the heating and cooling system of the ISS space station. The temperature goes from 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius) in day time, to minus 280 F (minus 173 C) at night on the moon.

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: oldcarpy
How come they fall down then, ie towards the Earth? Why don't they "fall" in some other random direction?

Because the objects are falling straight down through air, obviously. There is no other direction they would fall, except for straight down.

But why?

If I kick a football vertically up into air, why does it slow down and then reverse direction and start accelerating towards the ground?

It's due to aerodynamics, and energy transfer, same as always. If gravity existed, wouldn't you feel resistance as you kicked the football against the most powerful force in the universe? And wouldn't the football, if you ever COULD lift it against the most powerful force of all, also pull the football straight down to Earth, instead of letting it spin backwards in air?

I know you believe in gravity, but it's time to use your own brain for once, and grasp what is really going on in front of you. Think about how you do not feel a 'pull' on you, from below, whenever you fall from above the surface of Earth. You feel nothing 'pulling' you down, because nothing DOES 'pull' you down. Use your senses, they might help you more than all those so-called 'experts' who have convinced you into believing you are being 'pulled' to Earth, when you know it's total bs, because you are the person who feels no pull from below.

All these scumbags are laughing at how gullible you are, to actually believe them, over your own eyes, your own senses, and your own intelligence. You have the ability to change that, if you choose.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: 727Sky
Nasa administrator announces plans to ‘go to the moon and stay’

This is complete fantasy. The whole ISS space station would have to be on the moon, in order for people to be on the moon. You can not be on the moon in a Apollo moon lander, you need all the facilities of the ISS space station. Foremost the heating and cooling system of the ISS space station. The temperature goes from 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius) in day time, to minus 280 F (minus 173 C) at night on the moon.

Erm, no-one is saying you would establish a permanent presence with an Apollo style lander, which only had to survive a few days at most.

People do get confused by the temperature swings - it is not an instant transition.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: oldcarpy
How come they fall down then, ie towards the Earth? Why don't they "fall" in some other random direction?

Because the objects are falling straight down through air, obviously. There is no other direction they would fall, except for straight down.

But why?

If I kick a football vertically up into air, why does it slow down and then reverse direction and start accelerating towards the ground?

It's due to aerodynamics, and energy transfer, same as always. If gravity existed, wouldn't you feel resistance as you kicked the football against the most powerful force in the universe?

You do.

And wouldn't the football, if you ever COULD lift it against the most powerful force of all, also pull the football straight down to Earth, instead of letting it spin backwards in air?

Statement makes no sense at all, but if you understand how 'energy transfer' actually works, you'd understand why the kinetic energy imparted to the ball is eventually overcome by the pull of gravity. The energy equations with the inclusion of gravity all work perfectly. Equations with it don't.

I know you believe in gravity, but it's time to use your own brain for once, and grasp what is really going on in front of you.

~yawn~ Yet again we have the usual "you're only disagreeing with me because you haven't read the same webpages as me" nonsense. People are disagreeing with you because you're wrong.

Think about how you do not feel a 'pull' on you, from below, whenever you fall from above the surface of Earth.

You do, that's why you're falling.

You feel nothing 'pulling' you down, because nothing DOES 'pull' you down.

Yes it does: gravity.

Use your senses, they might help you more than all those so-called 'experts' who have convinced you into believing you are being 'pulled' to Earth, when you know it's total bs, because you are the person who feels no pull from below.

Again, step off a high building, see which direction you move in.

All these scumbags are laughing at how gullible you are, to actually believe them, over your own eyes, your own senses, and your own intelligence. You have the ability to change that, if you choose.

Once again: the intelligence required here is not from the people against whom you are trolling. My own intelligence, senses eyes, limbic system, whatever, all tell me that the scumbags are not the ones writing the textbooks.

You just keep saying we are 'pulled' down to Earth, and call it a 'fall', which means something else entirely, and don't know why you have conflicting claims, but who cares!!

The fantasy invention of gravity doesn't seem to ever die, it has people like you droning about it endlessly.

Resistance proves a force exists, and there is NO resistance at all with your fantasy force. I don't care how many times you say it exists, the reality shows otherwise, and that's the end of it.

I've shown you aircraft instruments proving the Earth is flat, and you ignore it all, as if it doesn't matter. Because you are in denial of reality, and the proof doesn't matter to you.


So live in your fantasy world, it is your problem, not mine.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: 727Sky
Nasa administrator announces plans to ‘go to the moon and stay’

This is complete fantasy. The whole ISS space station would have to be on the moon, in order for people to be on the moon. You can not be on the moon in a Apollo moon lander, you need all the facilities of the ISS space station. Foremost the heating and cooling system of the ISS space station. The temperature goes from 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius) in day time, to minus 280 F (minus 173 C) at night on the moon.

Erm, no-one is saying you would establish a permanent presence with an Apollo style lander, which only had to survive a few days at most.

People do get confused by the temperature swings - it is not an instant transition.

Don't know how you can believe anyone could "survive a few days at most" in a Apollo lander on the moon. Knowing that you need all the facilities of the ISS space station, foremost the heating and cooling system, in order to survive inside the lander on the moon.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: 727Sky
Nasa administrator announces plans to ‘go to the moon and stay’

This is complete fantasy. The whole ISS space station would have to be on the moon, in order for people to be on the moon. You can not be on the moon in a Apollo moon lander, you need all the facilities of the ISS space station. Foremost the heating and cooling system of the ISS space station. The temperature goes from 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius) in day time, to minus 280 F (minus 173 C) at night on the moon.

Erm, no-one is saying you would establish a permanent presence with an Apollo style lander, which only had to survive a few days at most.

People do get confused by the temperature swings - it is not an instant transition.

Don't know how you can believe anyone could "survive a few days at most" in a Apollo lander on the moon. Knowing that you need all the facilities of the ISS space station, foremost the heating and cooling system, in order to survive inside the lander on the moon.

It had good insulation. www.quora.com...



The heat produced by the equipment inside was carried away to the porous plate sublimator.

a reply to: Ove38

Because they had a heating and cooling system.

I know that these worked because there is an abundance of supporting evidence to say that it did - moon rocks, live TV showing verifiable images of Earth, verifiable photos of Earth, images taken by multiple space agencies showing evidence of human activity and hardware and so on.

If you have anything that proves the heating and cooling systems didn't work, by all means post it.

a reply to: Ove38

Don't know how you can believe anyone could "survive a few days at most" in a Apollo lander on the moon. Knowing that you need all the facilities of the ISS space station, foremost the heating and cooling system, in order to survive inside the lander on the moon.

Its not like they would camping out on the surface of the moon ….

Proposed lunar habitats would be mostly under ground, covered by lunar soil

One idea is to use lava tubes, which are tunnels carved out by ancient lava flows

Seal the tunnels off, install some airlocks and have a ready made habitat

Advantage of underground habitats is temperature control and protection from solar and cosmic radiation

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: 727Sky
Nasa administrator announces plans to ‘go to the moon and stay’

This is complete fantasy. The whole ISS space station would have to be on the moon, in order for people to be on the moon. You can not be on the moon in a Apollo moon lander, you need all the facilities of the ISS space station. Foremost the heating and cooling system of the ISS space station. The temperature goes from 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius) in day time, to minus 280 F (minus 173 C) at night on the moon.

Erm, no-one is saying you would establish a permanent presence with an Apollo style lander, which only had to survive a few days at most.

People do get confused by the temperature swings - it is not an instant transition.

Don't know how you can believe anyone could "survive a few days at most" in a Apollo lander on the moon. Knowing that you need all the facilities of the ISS space station, foremost the heating and cooling system, in order to survive inside the lander on the moon.

It had good insulation. www.quora.com...

The heat produced by the equipment inside was carried away to the porous plate sublimator.

So, “air conditioning” on the Apollo lander was just a matter of reflecting most of the sun’s heat with aluminium foils, that kept the sunlight from turning the Apollo lander into a pizza oven ? And the Apollo lander didn’t need any central heating, because it was full of heat producing equipment.


How can you believe this bullcrap ?

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: 727Sky
Nasa administrator announces plans to ‘go to the moon and stay’

This is complete fantasy. The whole ISS space station would have to be on the moon, in order for people to be on the moon. You can not be on the moon in a Apollo moon lander, you need all the facilities of the ISS space station. Foremost the heating and cooling system of the ISS space station. The temperature goes from 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius) in day time, to minus 280 F (minus 173 C) at night on the moon.

Erm, no-one is saying you would establish a permanent presence with an Apollo style lander, which only had to survive a few days at most.

People do get confused by the temperature swings - it is not an instant transition.

Don't know how you can believe anyone could "survive a few days at most" in a Apollo lander on the moon. Knowing that you need all the facilities of the ISS space station, foremost the heating and cooling system, in order to survive inside the lander on the moon.

It had good insulation. www.quora.com...

The heat produced by the equipment inside was carried away to the porous plate sublimator.

So, “air conditioning” on the Apollo lander was just a matter of reflecting most of the sun’s heat with aluminium foils, that kept the sunlight from turning the Apollo lander into a pizza oven ? And the Apollo lander didn’t need any central heating, because it was full of heat producing equipment.


How can you believe this bullcrap ?

Why not? There is very little heat transfer happening on the Moon. pseudoastro.wordpress.com...

Also, the Apollo landings took place during the lunar morning, when the sun wasn't very high up and the surface wasn't as hot as it gets during the day.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: wildespace

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: 727Sky
Nasa administrator announces plans to ‘go to the moon and stay’

This is complete fantasy. The whole ISS space station would have to be on the moon, in order for people to be on the moon. You can not be on the moon in a Apollo moon lander, you need all the facilities of the ISS space station. Foremost the heating and cooling system of the ISS space station. The temperature goes from 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius) in day time, to minus 280 F (minus 173 C) at night on the moon.

Erm, no-one is saying you would establish a permanent presence with an Apollo style lander, which only had to survive a few days at most.

People do get confused by the temperature swings - it is not an instant transition.

Don't know how you can believe anyone could "survive a few days at most" in a Apollo lander on the moon. Knowing that you need all the facilities of the ISS space station, foremost the heating and cooling system, in order to survive inside the lander on the moon.

It had good insulation. www.quora.com...

The heat produced by the equipment inside was carried away to the porous plate sublimator.

So, “air conditioning” on the Apollo lander was just a matter of reflecting most of the sun’s heat with aluminium foils, that kept the sunlight from turning the Apollo lander into a pizza oven ? And the Apollo lander didn’t need any central heating, because it was full of heat producing equipment.


How can you believe this bullcrap ?

Why do you post such uneducated bullcrap?

For every area outside the LM receiving radiant heat there was an area in shadow radiating heat back out. Electrical equipment produced heat. There was a glycol based cooling system that ran to sublimators to remove excess heat. Where is your proof that this wouldn't work?

www.quora.com...

...and seeing as you keep whining about the ISS:

science.nasa.gov...

Read it carefully:

Mylar based insulation and liquid based heat exchangers to cope with the temperature extremes - exactly the same as the LM.