Ares Super chute NASA's plan to return to the Moon.

Writer
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Dec 24, 2008 11:56 am

PostTue Mar 17, 2009 7:47 pm » by Future7


You can send probes to the moon to collect rocks.

you can send a probe to land and unfold for the probe they left behind.

rockets work in space dudes... lol...

the harshness of space, they had gold plated windows etc, ahahaha for the radiation... lol
and on the space visors they had what gold plated glass helmet.
why no radiation went thru them.. hmm as if man...

I will cover myself with gold tinfoil and see if no radiation goes thru me.. ROFL...

passing thru the van allens belt would be mass radiation in itself....

they wanted to use the nasa suits to go into chernobyl but it will not work, why??? it's only radiation man....

why fake photo's just because the fake ones look better!! pff lame excuse...

NASA = Never A Straight Answer!!...........

Also with current technology we can go to all of the planets.. we do have UFO spacecraft you know!!!!....

And lets just say they did goto the moon, why did a lot of these so called missions they went to the dark side of the moon... where these strange buildings are..

Why did the astronauts say they couldn't see any stars while on the moon with the naked eye. You should have had the best view of the stars.... AHAHAHAHAHAH

They say with our simple technology with nuclear engines and ion drive we can get to mars in 3 months.....

Initiate
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:44 am

PostTue Mar 17, 2009 10:08 pm » by Anse777


Have you heard of Ed Grimsley,David Wilcok,Steven Greer they got some interesting stuff too!

Initiate
Posts: 109
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 6:44 am

PostWed Mar 18, 2009 2:31 am » by Anse777


Dan Burisch and Graham Hancock are also interesting.check them all out if you haven't already.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1036
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:54 pm

PostWed Mar 18, 2009 1:19 pm » by Ogmios


I know every one's fed up with this point. I think I have to clarify it as best I can in a few minutes. The question of rockets working in space is a matter of resistance. An outboard motor uses the resistance of water and, through the propellar, pushes the boat forward. If you take the outboard motor out of the water it is useless because of the lower level of resistance in the air. Your boat won't move. Or perhaps a tiny bit.

What kind of resistance is there in deep space? What would the rockets push against?

And I'd like to throw in another point. The Appollo11 spacecraft is said to have swung round the Earth's orbit, using it's gravitational pull to build up momentum, then shot towards the moon. Then after reaching the moon, the capsule broke from the module (which was still orbiting the moon) and landed safely. A few dapper Americans got out, played golf, drove around on souped up beach buggies, plantet a flag, left a few photo's and vacated.

To leave though,they had to swing round the moon, again using it's gravitational pull for momentum. Oh, and this was after linking with the lunar module again. Then they entered the Earth's atmosphere, landed safely and that was that.

It seems almost credible until you consider that, up until that point, the USA had not managed to bring back one single UNMANNED probe safely. Not One. In fact, they had never even managed a safe landing on the moon up until then. So I'll go back to a previous point. With the eyes of the world upon them; with the cold war in full flow; would the American military industrial complex have taken the risk of killing these astronauts on TV?

I put it to you guys, that those astronauts were dropped from a freight aircraft and that the people in the photos were actors. Perhaps Charlton Heston and Gregory peck.
"God is a concept by which we measure our pain"
John Lennon

Conspirator
Posts: 5671
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:28 am

PostWed Mar 18, 2009 1:47 pm » by Drextin


ogmios wrote:I know every one's fed up with this point. I think I have to clarify it as best I can in a few minutes. The question of rockets working in space is a matter of resistance. An outboard motor uses the resistance of water and, through the propellar, pushes the boat forward. If you take the outboard motor out of the water it is useless because of the lower level of resistance in the air. Your boat won't move. Or perhaps a tiny bit.

What kind of resistance is there in deep space? What would the rockets push against?

And I'd like to throw in another point. The Appollo11 spacecraft is said to have swung round the Earth's orbit, using it's gravitational pull to build up momentum, then shot towards the moon. Then after reaching the moon, the capsule broke from the module (which was still orbiting the moon) and landed safely. A few dapper Americans got out, played golf, drove around on souped up beach buggies, plantet a flag, left a few photo's and vacated.

To leave though,they had to swing round the moon, again using it's gravitational pull for momentum. Oh, and this was after linking with the lunar module again. Then they entered the Earth's atmosphere, landed safely and that was that.

It seems almost credible until you consider that, up until that point, the USA had not managed to bring back one single UNMANNED probe safely. Not One. In fact, they had never even managed a safe landing on the moon up until then. So I'll go back to a previous point. With the eyes of the world upon them; with the cold war in full flow; would the American military industrial complex have taken the risk of killing these astronauts on TV?

I put it to you guys, that those astronauts were dropped from a freight aircraft and that the people in the photos were actors. Perhaps Charlton Heston and Gregory peck.


Why would they need actors? If it had been faked they would have used the astronauts since they still needed to be trained even for a hoax.

Dude you have all the scientific proof that rockets work in space and it is not magic it is simple physics. there is no longer any point in this you raise no valid arguments whatsoever, ignore direct evidence and pursue this subject with a uneducated arrogance.

So if you are waiting on me to keep providing facts that you can't comprehend..............don't hold ya gravity.
I am a nightmare walking, psychopath talking
King of my jungle just a gangster stalking

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1036
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:54 pm

PostWed Mar 18, 2009 8:58 pm » by Ogmios


If that's your point Dextrin and all you can do about in is resort to abuse I consider myself the victor in this little tit-tat. What about my other points? No, you have no opinion. Just a load of facts cut and pasted from other sources and a nasty little bee in your bonnet.

And I didn't make that stuff up about how they got there. Check it out. You can even paste it onto your next reply.
"God is a concept by which we measure our pain"
John Lennon

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2466
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 7:19 pm

PostWed Mar 18, 2009 9:14 pm » by Towelie


Rockets work in space not because the booster is applying a force to space, but due to the force it applies to the rocket its self, because the force pushing back upon the rocket is lower than the force applied from the booster it causes it to move in the direction the booster dictates. They use the gravitational pull from things in space not to make them move but to give them an extra speed boost, its cheaper than having to take all the extra fuel to get to the speed required. The science/math of it isnt all that complex its just dangerous.
Kill em all and let god sort them out!

Atheism is a non-prohet organisation.

Conspirator
Posts: 5671
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:28 am

PostWed Mar 18, 2009 9:32 pm » by Drextin


towelie wrote:Rockets work in space not because the booster is applying a force to space, but due to the force it applies to the rocket its self, because the force pushing back upon the rocket is lower than the force applied from the booster it causes it to move in the direction the booster dictates. They use the gravitational pull from things in space not to make them move but to give them an extra speed boost, its cheaper than having to take all the extra fuel to get to the speed required. The science/math of it isnt all that complex its just dangerous.


Word of advice towelie, don't get ya self involved. He totally ignores all proven science and uses bad science as his proof for not going to the moon. Then when you realize that he is hopeless and will never understand he revels in his ignorance and claims victory. He has no understanding of space travel so if he can't understand it then it must not be real.

Sad part is there are plenty of areas in the moon missions that one can attack with some success yet he would rather go after the things that no one disputes. His arguments are as baseless as claiming that we didn't go to the moon because there is no moon.
I am a nightmare walking, psychopath talking
King of my jungle just a gangster stalking

Conspirator
Posts: 1453
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:06 pm

PostThu Mar 19, 2009 12:17 pm » by Mushroom


Im believe we have the technology to send crafts to the moon quite easily and they probably can manouvre better than we are led to believe with modern rocket theory..Theyll prob use ion pulse drives or similar when in space..

The ONLY thing that baffles me is how living people can traverse the Van Allen Belt and travel to the moon being exposed to the full fury of the solar radiation with no detrement to their health whatsoever..

Possibilities as I see them:
1. The moon lies inside the van allen belt (I dont think this is the case!)
2. Solar radiation is not as deadly as we are led to beleive (Dont think so!)
3. Better radiation screening techniques were employed in the little space suits (Maybe!)

NO IDEA REALLY... Can someone please enlighten me so that I can put this one to rest. CHEERS

Conspirator
Posts: 5671
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 11:28 am

PostThu Mar 19, 2009 12:28 pm » by Drextin


mushroom wrote:Im believe we have the technology to send crafts to the moon quite easily and they probably can manouvre better than we are led to believe with modern rocket theory..Theyll prob use ion pulse drives or similar when in space..

The ONLY thing that baffles me is how living people can traverse the Van Allen Belt and travel to the moon being exposed to the full fury of the solar radiation with no detrement to their health whatsoever..

Possibilities as I see them:
1. The moon lies inside the van allen belt (I dont think this is the case!)
2. Solar radiation is not as deadly as we are led to beleive (Dont think so!)
3. Better radiation screening techniques were employed in the little space suits (Maybe!)

NO IDEA REALLY... Can someone please enlighten me so that I can put this one to rest. CHEERS


You hit the nail on the head mushroom!

The radiation problem has to me always been the weak link. I've heard arguments from both sides and both sounding credible. I wish I could find irrefutable evidence either way.
I am a nightmare walking, psychopath talking
King of my jungle just a gangster stalking


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook