Intersteller Travel in 100 Years?

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

I came across this and just had to share.

http://physorg.com/news8817.html

 

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Good read Trip. Just think, it wasn't that long ago that people thought we could never go on the moon....

 

But did we actually 'go to the moon' Boyce!

Always been a big question!

 

Brilliant !! My favourite conspiracy theory lives !!!! I think that we can now say that this thread has been well and truly hijacked. Let the fun begin ....

 

I didn't want to hijack the thread!

But like you said it is a good conspiracy!

 

Thanks I have just spent the last two hours reading all that NASA conspiracy stuff and the discoveries of the director of "A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon" and now my opinion has changed completely.

I now do not believe that man ever set foot on the moon.

Which is related to Trips link because it's just more science fiction that we will all be expected to believe.

I dunno first Father Christmas, then the tooth fairy and now the giant leap for mankind

 

Did you know that the whole "moonlanding" cover-up (for we all know it was filmed in a soundstage in Area 51, with Armstrong played by JFK) was actually funded by the Kraft Dairylea Cheese Corporation ? This was to avoid the potentially horrendous implications of the public ever finding out that the moon really actually IS made of cheese, and setting off untold "cheese-harvesting" missions, and thereby bring the Corporation to it's knees ?

You see - when the facts are laid out in front of you, the whole truth is clear to see !! :hhhmmm

 

I read a theory that the moon landings were real but that the cameras failed on the surface.

They had already commissioned Stanley Kubrick to film a fake landing in case we failed.

They choose to air the fake footage instead of claiming that the cameras failed.

 

I'll tell you this for nothing: I used to be a firm believer of the Moon landings and ALWAYS argued for NASA's case when engaging in debates about whether it happened or not! Well, that was until I came across this:

http://www.brainsluice.com/miscellanea/misc/moonlanding.html

Damn NASA, do they really think the public is stupid? Apologies to all the conspiracy theorists that I argued with...I am truly ashamed!

 

Yep...thread firmly hijacked, but an interesting conversation nonetheless. I wonder what this bodes for President Bush's previous announcement that America is going to establish a moon base and manned missions to Mars in the next several decades. If all anyone's achieved in terms of space travel is orbital space, then we still have a long way to go.

 

You know, I think this is worthy of a Poll.

Despite my rather tongue-in-cheek extension to the "the landings never happened - think of the cheese" post above, I am of similar mind to those who were previous believers in the landings, but upon reading into it (and yeah, the Clangers theory is convincing, but .... ) one can't help wondering. Let's see what the rest of you think ...

VOTE HERE

 

ok look...I havent read Trips article...but thats cos a) I dont want to and b) I dont need to....why? cos I firmly believe man did set foot on the moon. how can you people say it never happened? I mean it would have to be the biggest flamin hoax in all history never mind people saying they have been seeing UFOs or been abducted!! and if you think about it give it another 10-20yrs and we will all be able to go to the moon as we are able to go to Australia and other parts of the world....so why not the moon and mars? eventually the Earth will get crowded, global warming will crop up ever more and my God the ozone layer is in big trouble and lets not forget that Mother Nature herself is going thru her menopause right now (either that or its a very very long period!!!) and that my children concludes my rant for now...now off to the poll!!!

 

We hope and pray you will be one of the Pioneers, NoelG !!

 

i

Australia is approx 12000 miles away from any place on our planet and you can get there because you don't have to leave the Earths atmosphere or go through radiation belts.

The Moon is 240000 miles into space, you have to go through radiation belts that would require 8 inch thick lead to protect you. The shuttle has only ever gone 400 miles into space, it has never been through the radiation belts. Because if it did the occupants would all fry. Read Jak's *go to the moon* link.

Big difference to traveling on Qantas IMHO

 

Ok, just needed to get this off my chest. First, personally couldn't care less if we went to the moon or not, until there's a sustainable colony up there it's for all intents useless going there, i mean whats regolith good for? Secondly, the first thing we should be looking at doing instead of manned and unmanned missions to mars, is to survey the asteroid belt, there's potentially a goldmine (perhaps literally) to be found out there!
Thirdly, generation ships. The premise is simple if you don't already know it, find an asteroid (the bigger the better), hollow it out, introduce a sustainable biosphere, load it with people and slingshot it round the sun to whichever star takes your fancy! Several thousand years (and of course generations later) it arrives at a hopefully habitable planet. This would be the only way of colonising the galaxy until an ftl drive is invented, or a vastly superior alien intelligence shows us the way. Bare in mind that the former option is actually possible NOW. Meaning that if, say, America, decided it was going to happen any one of us could be boldly going within a few decades! Imagine that, stuck in an asteroid for the rest of your life, not sure whether to laugh, cry or vomit! :hhhmmm

 

The problem with your generation ship idea Bob is that we don't know how to make a biosphere that's self sustaining. I recall a private investor set up an experiment called "BioSphere II" in Arizona back in the 1980s and 90s. The idea was just as you said...to be able to demonstrate that we could construct a completely self contained biosphere here on Earth so we could then use the technology for long-term space flights.

Unfortunately, the problems ended up being harder to solve than it seemed at first. The credibility of the experiment collapsed in a screaming scandal when it was discovered that the carbon dioxide build up couldn't be controlled and oxygen had to be secretly put inside the "sealed" environment from the outside.

Here's wikipedia's take:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2

When I looked it up on Google, I was surprised to find out it still existed:

http://www.desertusa.com/mag99/apr/stories/bios2.html

http://www.bio2.com/

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-1.3/metasphere.html

 

Well, I wasn't going to even become involved in this because as far as I'm concerned this conspiracy theory is about as rational as wearing a tinfoil hat to protect your mind from alien/government radio transmissions. However, the above statement simply isn't true.

1. A spaceship can leave the earth and fly to the moon without even entering the Van Allen radiation belts. Any reputable diagram of the Van Allen belts show they do not exist above the North and South poles as the radiation is trapped in the magnetic flux lines from the earth poles. Because of the shape and strength of the flux lines above the poles the Van Allen belts cannot exist there. So, it is possible to navigate your way around them.

2. The amount of time an astronaut would spend in the Van Allen belt is very brief even if they did fly directly through them.

3. The radiation in the Van Allen belts is not nearly as strong as is being portrayed on the conspiracy nut's website. For proof take a look at this site for radiation exposure levels.

 

I have already posted a link in Jaks other thread where I re-tract everything I said here and posted a link to a site that convincingly destroys Bart's conspiracy theory. I now know it is all baloney but thanks for rubbing it in

 

LOL. Sorry. I hadn't read your post on the other thread. I was just responding to what I read here. I certainly wasn't trying to "rub it in" in any way.