When will we reach the Moon, Mars, Jupiter, another star and another galaxy...

emmjaybee said:
Well quite simple really, IF we did land on the moon then what was left behind (moon buggy and equipment) would be visible through a DECENT telescope, especially as we have telescopes that can see other unviverses. Also what about the radiation belt? This part I'm not too sure about. They say that we couldn't pass through it. Another thing is why haven't we been there since? Technology has increased tenfold since 1969 so that is my theory.
Click to expand...

I think the last time I saw such a poor understanding of science was when debating with someone who thought Intelligent Design was "Good science".
 
emmjaybee said:
Well quite simple really, IF we did land on the moon then what was left behind (moon buggy and equipment) would be visible through a DECENT telescope, especially as we have telescopes that can see other unviverses. Also what about the radiation belt? This part I'm not too sure about. They say that we couldn't pass through it. Another thing is why haven't we been there since? Technology has increased tenfold since 1969 so that is my theory.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: do some research, nothing you say their is true.

The radiation belt is not a problem. even the person who discovered it, says it's not a problem.
Equipment was left their, a very precise set of mirrors to measure the distance between the earth and the moon. Which is still being used today.

Because it's expensive and is not needed until now.

What you have to realize that the radiation involved isn't the same kind or intensity as you might get from a nuclear bomb. You don't fall sick and your hair doesn't all fall out. It's been calculated that travelling at speed through the Van Allen belt would result in exposure of 1 rem. Radiation sickness symptoms don't start to show until you get around 25. Once you reach 100 you're going to be ill. 500 and you're probably dead. So the exposure the astronauts received is pretty mild.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
NeilFawcett said:
Go on, put your scifi heads on and predict how many years till:-
- A human lands on the Moon again 2020-2030
- A human lands on Mars 2040-2050
- A human reaches Jupiter (Arthur C Clarke said we'd already be there :)) 2070-2080
- A probe or human reaches another star 2120-2150
- A probe or human reaches another galaxy 10000+
Click to expand...

The point of going to the Moon is to provide testing of the different technologies needed to travel further. Also to give you a staging area which is outside the mavity well of the Earth that is more stable to work in that a full mavity less environment. We could probably do this and even the Mars mission now if there was the money and the will.

Pushing out to Juptier would allow for the mining of resources from other parts of the solar system instead of hauling them out of a mavity well. It would also open the possibility of outposts for exploration on Jupiter's moons.

I think that we'll probably be back in space for ~100 years before we get advanced enough to get to the nearest stars in a usable manner and that assumes improvements in drive, environment and power systems. That's assuming no big break through which turns things completely on their heads. We will then slowly (or quickly depending on technology) spread out into the Galaxy .... and we would be spending thousands of years exploring that before we ever made an attempt to get to another one, (assuming nothing wiped us out in the meantime, (think a mutated alien virus or bacteria instead of laser whip wielding aliens)).

I'll be 70 in 2045 though so the chances of being around to see much of the interesting stuff is minimal :(
 
Last edited:
emmjaybee said:
Well quite simple really, IF we did land on the moon then what was left behind (moon buggy and equipment) would be visible through a DECENT telescope, especially as we have telescopes that can see other unviverses. Also what about the radiation belt?
Click to expand...

Out of interest, do you plead ignorance or lazyness? Spend two minutes in google and you can fine all your answers. But you clearly don't want to know the actual facts...

As regards your question - Even Hubble couldn't see a lunar lander on the moon...
 
NeilFawcett said:
We have lunar rocks brought back by the astronauts. We have countless photos and hours of video footage. We have radio telemetry from the space flights. We have seen the 'blobs' in photos from the surface of the remains of the landers. We can shoot lasers at the moon and bounce them back off the mirror left there by the astronauts.
Click to expand...

My google skills arent as good as your google skills because I havent been able to find any photos of blobs from the surface of the left over space craft.
 
- A human lands on the Moon again - 30 years
- A human lands on Mars - 60 years
- A human reaches Jupiter - 100 years
- A probe or human reaches another star -100 years
- A probe or human reaches another galaxy - 100 years

I'm basing this on the fact that if we have the ability to reach Jupiter then we would have the technology in propulsion to get us there quickly enough for it to be worthwhile, and therefore out of our solar system as well.
 
NeilFawcett said:
Wow! Hundreds of thousands of light years away, in just 500yrs time? Wow!

The thing is... If it was possible to travel so easily, where is ET?
Click to expand...

Space is vast, even if you could travel at those speeds you could spend forever visiting every star.

ET has only checked every star in 100 galaxys so far, still along way to go before he gets to us :p Mabe he will pickup our tv signals and learn how to achive warp 9 to speed it up a bit ;)
 
emmjaybee said:
Well quite simple really, IF we did land on the moon then what was left behind (moon buggy and equipment) would be visible through a DECENT telescope, especially as we have telescopes that can see other unviverses.
Click to expand...

We don't have a telescope capable yet of looking at the Apollo landing sites in any kind of detail.

emmjaybee said:
Also what about the radiation belt? This part I'm not too sure about. They say that we couldn't pass through it.
Click to expand...

Firstly, spacecraft tend to move at quite a high speed. They passed through the Van Allen belts in a pretty short space of time. Secondly, the belts aren't a sphere all the way around the earth. The flight path of the Apollo craft took them up to a point where the belts are thinner, reducing the time spent in the belts even further.

emmjaybee said:
Another thing is why haven't we been there since? Technology has increased tenfold since 1969 so that is my theory.
Click to expand...

You know, of all the theories the Hoax Believers trot out, this one has to be the most tedious.

After Apollo, the Skylab programme started up. The Russians had been running a space station programme for a while and the US figured that the scientific benefits of doing long-term space stays were a bit more attractive than going back to the Moon over and over and over again. Especially since they very nearly lost three astronauts on the fifth run up there (Apollos 8, 10, 11 and 12 all orbited the Moon, 11 and 12 obviously the only ones to land). So they used the rest of the Apollo hardware to do Earth-orbit missions while they got on with designing and building the Space Shuttle.
 
- A human lands on the Moon again - 53 years
- A human lands on Mars - 75 years
- A human reaches Jupiter - 112 years
- A probe or human reaches another star -999 years
- A probe or human reaches another galaxy - 9999 years
 
Duggan said:
Ta that explains that one. I wonder if the new mapping satellite would have the ability to see these landing zones or would this be the same reason as the telescopes not being to get enough detail from the photos res being to low etc.
Click to expand...

I assume the mapping ones will be in low earth orbit so will have exactly the same problem. it's also a urban myth that space satellites can read newspaper headings. The most powerful de-classified ones can resolve down to a couple of meters squared. So a car is about the size of one pixel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom