The Moon and Design

Originally posted by @sonhouse
This is partially true of course but a person on a moon or asteroid may have more observational ability than a robot which may not understand a find is important and just roll its treads away from a possible momentous find, like a thigh bone sticking out of a hillside on Mars, just as a frivolous example. If images are sent to Earth in time, operators may ...[text shortened]... e imaging optics it would be missed but a person on the ground may see things a robot does not.

That may be so, but for the cost of sending one man to Mars to have a close inspection of a single hillside which almost certainly does not have a thigh bone sticking out of it, we can send landers and probes to every planet and moon in the solar system. The latter is better use of the money by far.

At least in THIS century. Next century is an open bet.
I suspect you have lost track of where centuries start and end.
Robots will be better observers than humans by the end of this decade. They will be far far better explorers by the end of the next decade. By the end of the century, who knows.

Originally posted by @twhitehead
There are two basic reasons:
1. There were plenty of other things to do.
2. The funding for NASA was cut significantly in favour of making weapons.

There are two basic reasons:
1. There were plenty of other things to do.
By that reasoning, once should have been more than sufficient.
And yet we got billed for six of them.
And, according to NASA, they’re going to bill us again for going back in 2020.

Assuming the years 1960-1972 saw 100% of the budget spent on manned explorations, we spent $313B of the total expenditures--- or 27% of all sixty years’ worth of spending--- for an average of $26B for each of those 13 years.
If none of the budget since then has been spent on returning to the moon, what did we spend $828B--- an average of $17B/year--- on in the other 47 years?


2. The funding for NASA was cut significantly in favour of making weapons.
Wrong.
From a high of $43B in 1966, the budget for the agency has never been less than $14B every year since 1975, despite the last manned mission (allegedly) taking place three years prior, in December 1972.
In the 60 years between 1958 and 2018, we have been billed in excess of one trillion US, or ~$1,162,840,000,000.
That’s an average of ~$19.4B/year for all years.

27 decreases, 29 increases, four years flat.
The largest decrease was from 1969 to 1970, when it went down 17%.
On average, the decreases have been 6%.

The largest increase was from 1959 to 1960, when it went up 172%.
On average, the increases have been 23%. Reveal Hidden Content

Perhaps something else is afoot.
According to NASA and others associated with the agency, the technology doesn’t exist anymore... which is more than a little confounding, given the magnitude of the announced accomplishment. Reveal Hidden Content

"The amount of rocket energy it takes to accelerate those kinds of payloads away from Earth doesn’t exist anymore," said Jeff Hanley, NASA's Constellation program manager. "It exited in the Apollo era with the Saturn V. Since that time this nation has retired that capability."

Reveal Hidden Content

Originally posted by @freakykbh
By that reasoning, once should have been more than sufficient.

Yes it would.

And yet we got billed for six of them.
US politics is weird isn't it?

Assuming the years 1960-1972 saw 100% of the budget spent on manned explorations, we spent $313B of the total expenditures--- or 27% of all sixty years’ worth of spending--- for an average of $26B for each of those 13 years.
If none of the budget since then has been spent on returning to the moon, what did we spend $828B--- an average of $17B/year--- on in the other 47 years?
I am sure a quick look at the NASA website would tell you. I mean how the heck did you find those figures but fail to find a basic budget for what it was spent on? I am sure that a quick look around will find you what you are looking for. Learn how to Google.

Wrong.
From a high of $43B in 1966, the budget for the agency has never been less than $14B every year since 1975, despite the last manned mission (allegedly) taking place three years prior, in December 1972.
So basically RIGHT despite how you started out. Always funny how you say I am wrong then proceed to back me up with facts and figures and references that support me.

Perhaps something else is afoot.
Or perhaps you are a flat earther, conspiracy theorist nutcase. The latter seems much more likely given the actual evidence.

Originally posted by @twhitehead
Yes it would.

[b]And yet we got billed for six of them.
US politics is weird isn't it?

Assuming the years 1960-1972 saw 100% of the budget spent on manned explorations, we spent $313B of the total expenditures--- or 27% of all sixty years’ worth of spending--- for an average of $26B for each of those 13 years.
If none of the budget since t ...[text shortened]... rther, conspiracy theorist nutcase. The latter seems much more likely given the actual evidence.

I am sure a quick look at the NASA website would tell you. I mean how the heck did you find those figures but fail to find a basic budget for what it was spent on?
You made the half-baked claim; I researched it, found your claim spurious.

I am sure that a quick look around will find you what you are looking for. Learn how to Google.
Per your predictable tack, you make a half-baked (but fully wrong) claim, then expect others to do your work for you.
Google yourself.

So basically RIGHT despite how you started out. Always funny how you say I am wrong then proceed to back me up with facts and figures and references that support me.
No, basically and emphatically wrong.
You claim they had “other things” to do than return to the moon again, but failed to say what the “other things” were.
If the moon landings were such an enormous project--- as is supported by use of 27% of NASA’s total budget since inception spent on them--- then it stands to reason that a budget of nearly two and a half times that amount would have created a body of work represented by at least that much of an increase in scope, as well.
And yet, we haven’t seen anywhere near the accomplishments since then.
Circling the earth in low orbit while wearing gorilla suits, singing catchy choral numbers, having Super Bowl extravaganzas, or the cherry-on-top: “proving” to all the conspiracy theorists that they’re really in space by performing somersaults aided by harnesses; all real cutting edge science stuff, huh.

Had you actually looked at the budget instead of relying on the general averaging of the same supplied by me, you possibly could have noted that in the 44 years since the explorations inexplicably stopped the average is but a mere tic off of the overall average since inception.
I use the term “inexplicably” because--- contrary to your claim of budget cuts--- the amount earmarked for NASA has increased more often and to a greater percentage than decreases over the course of its entire funding.

Now you can come back with your usual childish negation without support, but you and I both know you don’t have anything to back it up other than your claim.
And your claim is wrong.

Or perhaps you are a flat earther, conspiracy theorist nutcase. The latter seems much more likely given the actual evidence.
However one views the shape of the earth has literally nothing to do with your bogus claims.
But excellent effort in trying to divert the conversation away from the salient points.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
[b]I am sure a quick look at the NASA website would tell you. I mean how the heck did you find those figures but fail to find a basic budget for what it was spent on?
You made the half-baked claim; I researched it, found your claim spurious.

I am sure that a quick look around will find you what you are looking for. Learn how to Google.
Per ...[text shortened]... claims.
But excellent effort in trying to divert the conversation away from the salient points.[/b]

No doubt in MY mind. He is a flat Earther AND a traitor to the US. He should ask Putin if HE believes we went to the moon in 69. He also seems to forget about RS25, the replacement of the Saturn V and more powerful and using 40 years newer technology.

Freak doesn't care about ANY of that since he thinks it was all made up in a video stage. It would be easy to spot someone doing summersaults with straps on especially the way several people do it at once in different angles at the same time flying down the length of a section all with straps. He is a traitor, nothing less.
Here is a bit about the latest super rocket tests, with a 2019 unmanned mission to the moon planned:

https://www.space.com/37628-nasa-sls-megarocket-rs-25-engine-test-video.html

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
I have sensed signals that Chaney thinks he has won this discussion. That he really think that the total solar eclipse is some kind of proof that the universe is designed by someone.

These are two questions that I'm sure that Chainey can answer to show he is right in these matters. If he fail to give an adequate answer to each of them, then I assume h ...[text shortened]... re, to let it be a perfect total eclipse every month?

A very sloppy designer if you ask me...

There is nothing 'random' about the sizes, positions and distances of the earth, moon and sun. Not just for an eclipse, but for the very survival of life on earth.

I have already, with great success, debated these issues.

Nothing random at all, and no cosmic roll of the dice, leading to a lucky scenario. They were all 'placed' there. Design!!

Originally posted by @chaney3
There is nothing 'random' about the sizes, positions and distances of the earth, moon and sun. Not just for an eclipse, but for the very survival of life on earth.

I have already, with great success, debated these issues.

Nothing random at all, and no cosmic roll of the dice, leading to a lucky scenario. They were all 'placed' there. Design!!

How do you go about proving your thesis?

Originally posted by @sonhouse
How do you go about proving your thesis?

You will see the proof of design on August 21, 2017. 🙂

No cosmic accident, no rolling of dice with sizes and distances of earth, moon and sun. No coincidences.

Design.

Originally posted by @chaney3
You will see the proof of design on August 21, 2017. 🙂

No cosmic accident, no rolling of dice with sizes and distances of earth, moon and sun. No coincidences.

Design.

That's your big proof, that eclipses have happened for a billion years to amuse gods? Your gods need to get a hobby if that is what they like to design. But how do you explain why eclipses happen elsewhere in the solar system, much less on billions of planets with moons on them in just OUR galaxy alone.

The way solar systems happen is a bunch of star poop forms a nebula of stuff that the star pushes out after it goes nova, making the heavier elements and such and a cloud of the stuff collapses over time and that collapse happens to take the shape of a pancake shaped rotating cloud that gravity forces the middle part into making a new sun by just pure gravitational attraction squashing star poop together to make yet another star.
So here is a proto solar system, a few million years old, happening by the TRILLIONS in the universe, all that gunk of dust and water vapor and carbon and iron and all the rest in this rotating cloud that hangs out as a pancake shaped mass rotating around the newly minted sun which happens every day every year every century of time in the universe

This is not theory. Telescopes are WAY powerful now, and they see so many newly minted solar systems in the making they can chart them together and see patterns of how the planets then form. Stuff attracts other stuff and the more stuff gets stuck to a rock it starts to grow with no aid needed, attracting more and more of the dust and stuff of the new system, that game plays out on a bunch of new planets that form from all that dust in the new system. Then moons happen too but here is the thing: Most of those planets and moons are all still on the 'equator' of the solar system since that is where the pancake of stuff resides. That happens over and over and over in our galaxy and every other galaxy in the universe. There is no other way to make planets except out of that pancake of stuff and that pancake of stuff happens to almost ALWAYS be in the same plane the star rotates in so the star say has a north pole pointing up from the pancake and south from the pancake and rotates on its axis and so does the pancake turned solar system.

So moons develop and most of them in the same plane as the planets and the sun so it is NOT a coincidence that a moon can be in front of a star and there is ZERO design in all that, it is a direct consequence of the conservation of energy where the collapsing cloud starts spinning and the whole cloud gets flattened out even before planets are started. An example of this is Saturn, obvious rings around the equator, it is a junior version of what happens when a solar system is made, the ALL just form pancakes shapes at first and the planets and moons form out of that star poop that was in the original cloud.

They see the results of that in the composition of the stars, spectrographic analysis shows what a star is made of, and our sun has a nice amount of star poop like iron and gold and such and so did the cloud of stuff that ended up being the planets, they ALL started from the same cloud of star poop, but some star poop is more valuable than others.
There are solar systems with very little in the way of heavy metals and a planet forming there sucks hind tit for iron or copper or phosphorous and such and as a result will not have the needed star poop to form life and so goes through its entire life cycle with no life able to form because the heavy elements are not there to do it.

We need iron, phos, carbon, nitrogen and such and some stars are shortchanged in that regard since the cloud they came from was short changed because it was only say a minor nova that was unable to make the heavier elements that at least Earth life needs.

And I think it a safe bet that life anywhere in the universe would need heavier elements also so stars that show low metals would not be a place humans would even want to visit even assuming we could go a million times the speed of light or some such.

So it is NOT in the slightest a design thing unless you include the entire universe in your design thesis. It happens EVERYWHERE there are stars, there will most likely be planets and where there are dominant planets there will be moons and they for the most part will be more or less on the same plane as the planets they circle so they will ALL have possibility of eclipses.

In short it is a crap shoot not a design.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
That's your big proof, that eclipses have happened for a billion years to amuse gods? Your gods need to get a hobby if that is what they like to design. But how do you explain why eclipses happen elsewhere in the solar system, much less on billions of planets with moons on them in just OUR galaxy alone.

The way solar systems happen is a bunch of star po ...[text shortened]... rcle so they will ALL have possibility of eclipses.

In short it is a crap shoot not a design.

While my focus here has been on earth, moon and sun......I should say that the entirety of the universe is ALSO by design. Not sure why you would assume otherwise.

All of this so called 'space poop' you are describing did not just magically organize itself into a 'universe' after the big bang, it organized exactly how it was supposed to.

Not to mention that none of you guys have a clue where the 'matter' came from to go bang in the first place. All of you neatly sidestep that issue with collective silence, and minimize the importance of it.

Originally posted by @freakykbh
[b]I am sure a quick look at the NASA website would tell you. I mean how the heck did you find those figures but fail to find a basic budget for what it was spent on?
You made the half-baked claim; I researched it, found your claim spurious.

I am sure that a quick look around will find you what you are looking for. Learn how to Google.
Per ...[text shortened]... claims.
But excellent effort in trying to divert the conversation away from the salient points.[/b]

The use of harnesses while claiming to be in zero gravity is all over the internet.
Here's another of science's great leap forward: flexible "bendy" metal.

YouTube

Originally posted by @freakykbh
The use of harnesses while claiming to be in zero gravity is all over the internet.
Here's another of science's great leap forward: flexible "bendy" metal.

[youtube]TJo4Uq2wCQo[/youtube]

Boy does that show you how dumb some people can get on so many levels. Like the 'oh there is the curve of Earth, at least that proves Earth is a globe' neglecting the clear fact that the camera is using a fisheye lens which will give Earth a nice curve to it, when you can see the curvature of objects inside the area where the astronauts are working. Before that they show the underwater simulation and they think that is the real spacecraft.

Yep, I'm convinced. It HAS to be fake........

It's also very nice the freak can't read it since he (I THINK it's a he anyway) put me on ignore. So he won't even read this. Oh am I SO upset.
This is great, he made me the invisible man. Thank you, traitor.

Originally posted by @chaney3
There is nothing 'random' about the sizes, positions and distances of the earth, moon and sun. Not just for an eclipse, but for the very survival of life on earth.

I have already, with great success, debated these issues.

Nothing random at all, and no cosmic roll of the dice, leading to a lucky scenario. They were all 'placed' there. Design!!

Debated and failed...

Then, perhaps you can show us these 'non-random' orbital elements so we can see that they are nicely designed?

Originally posted by @chaney3
You will see the proof of design on August 21, 2017. 🙂

No cosmic accident, no rolling of dice with sizes and distances of earth, moon and sun. No coincidences.

Design.

Did we also see the proof of design on May 22, 1960?

( Valdivia earthquake - Chile. 9.4 magnitude).

Cosmic accident? Design flaw?!

Originally posted by @ghost-of-a-duke
Did we also see the proof of design on May 22, 1960?

( Valdivia earthquake - Chile. 9.4 magnitude).

Cosmic accident? Design flaw?!

Cosmic accident? Design flaw?!

Cosmic means occurring in, or coming from, the part of space that lies outside Earth and its atmosphere.Reveal Hidden Content

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/cosmic

Oops.