Following on from the radiation in Space thread
20 September 2006, 01:30 PM
#61
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why don't they/when will they build a space craft in space so that its design is not inhibited by the requirement for atmospheric flight. Notwithstanding the resource implications of doing this surely from an engineering point of view such a craft would be vastly superior and could be far larger and more practical in terms of its layout. Hell, you could probably build something the shape of the USS Enterprise (NCC1701 (i.e. not the boat)) if you wanted 
20 September 2006, 01:34 PM
#62
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Saxo Boy
Why don't they/when will they build a space craft in space so that its design is not inhibited by the requirement for atmospheric flight. Notwithstanding the resource implications of doing this surely from an engineering point of view such a craft would be vastly superior and could be far larger and more practical in terms of its layout. Hell, you could probably build something the shape of the USS Enterprise (NCC1701 (i.e. not the boat)) if you wanted
20 September 2006, 01:37 PM
#64
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be near impossible to build a proper space ship in space at this time
Maybe if the american's stopped spending all their money sueing each other for making them fat or chain smokers they would have a pot of cash with which to take on such a project
20 September 2006, 01:43 PM
#65
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: RIP - Tam the bam & Andy the Jock
Posts: 14,333
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Saxo Boy
I'd argue resource intensive but not impossible Maybe if the american's stopped spending all their money sueing each other for making them fat or chain smokers they would have a pot of cash with which to take on such a project
Maybe if the american's stopped spending all their money sueing each other for making them fat or chain smokers they would have a pot of cash with which to take on such a project 
....... **** that where's my spacesuit........
20 September 2006, 02:52 PM
#66
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 4,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by carl
See the British Interplanetary Society's proposal for the Daedalus spacecraft. Must have been 20 years ago now...
I used to think, "if they have all this, even down to the ships blue prints, just go an build it"..
20 September 2006, 05:31 PM
#67
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The evidence I've seen make be believe that
If you had actually looked at all the evidence out there you would realise that all the ct arguments are based on seriously flawed (read bull****) physics. The arguments sound valid to people who don't know enough about the subject but the theories are based on false principles.
All you see on the net is conspiracy stuff. Funny how they conveniently ignore all the independant experiments done by proper scientists that show up their 'scientific evidence' as complete fiction.
I'm not going to say we went to the moon because the US said we did. What I am saying is there has yet to be any evidence to say that we didn't and so far rather a lot to say that we did.
20 September 2006, 05:33 PM
#68
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming the lunar landing site faces the earth from time-to-time surely there is a telescope(s) that is powerful enough to pick out some evidence of it? Why don't they just point n' prove?
20 September 2006, 05:38 PM
#69
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stilover
It really amazes me. Everything the US Governments say, people assume that they are always telling the truth. Why?
Do you not think that maybe it's possible that the US Government faked the Moon landings for their own gain?
Do you all believe the US Governments reasons for invading Iraq, ie WMD? Or do you maybe think it's all about Oil?
No, The US Government said it was for WMD, so that must be true then
You really need to think for yourselves instead of being a bunch of sheep. Obviously as soon as someone tries to prove the Government are lying they are going to try to dismiss these as conspiracy theories. Why aren't the US Governments versions the real conspiracy theories? Because most of the population are under the deluded view that the US Government would never lie to them. They are the Government after all.
The day NASA/US Government allow Hubble to be turned on the moon, and allow an independent body to view the lunar landing site, is the day I'll take back my words and be a true believer, just like most of you.
Now, NASA/US Government say it would cost to much, it would take so long finding the site. They've been there, they must know where they landed. Someone even suggested on one documentary I was watching, saying that the remaining debris is too small for Hubble to pick out.
When Hubble was launched, they said it was powerful enough to pick up a pin on the surface of Mars. Why now is it not powerful enough to pick out a moon buggy on the Moon?
Turn Hubble on the moon and prove all the conspiracy theorists wrong.
Most of you are a Governments dream Voter. You believe any old cr@p they tell you to believe.
Do you not think that maybe it's possible that the US Government faked the Moon landings for their own gain?
Do you all believe the US Governments reasons for invading Iraq, ie WMD? Or do you maybe think it's all about Oil?
No, The US Government said it was for WMD, so that must be true then
You really need to think for yourselves instead of being a bunch of sheep. Obviously as soon as someone tries to prove the Government are lying they are going to try to dismiss these as conspiracy theories. Why aren't the US Governments versions the real conspiracy theories? Because most of the population are under the deluded view that the US Government would never lie to them. They are the Government after all.
The day NASA/US Government allow Hubble to be turned on the moon, and allow an independent body to view the lunar landing site, is the day I'll take back my words and be a true believer, just like most of you.
Now, NASA/US Government say it would cost to much, it would take so long finding the site. They've been there, they must know where they landed. Someone even suggested on one documentary I was watching, saying that the remaining debris is too small for Hubble to pick out.
When Hubble was launched, they said it was powerful enough to pick up a pin on the surface of Mars. Why now is it not powerful enough to pick out a moon buggy on the Moon?
Turn Hubble on the moon and prove all the conspiracy theorists wrong.
Most of you are a Governments dream Voter. You believe any old cr@p they tell you to believe.
20 September 2006, 05:46 PM
#70
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Derbyshire
Posts: 12,304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by stilover
It just annoys me sometimes when people just believe because the Governments say that what happend. As we all know, Governments don't always tell the truth.
20 September 2006, 05:48 PM
#71
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 7,901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Saxo Boy
Assuming the lunar landing site faces the earth from time-to-time surely there is a telescope(s) that is powerful enough to pick out some evidence of it? Why don't they just point n' prove?
See here for some calculations
http://calgary.rasc.ca/moonscope.htm
Would need a 100m mirror even if there was no atmospheric distortion.
20 September 2006, 06:03 PM
#72
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe someone should invent something a little less prehistoric than using mirrors and lenses then 
Were we not using that technology to guide ourselves hundreds of years ago 
Were we not using that technology to guide ourselves hundreds of years ago
link carl - made for interesting reading 
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
28
28 December 2015 11:07 PM
Mattybr5@MB Developments
Full Cars Breaking For Spares
12
18 November 2015 07:03 AM