/sci/ - Science & Math

1) NASA had the technology to send a man to Mars and back.
2) Shielding
3)Human brains try to see patterns in everything.
4)Surface of the Moon is too bright to have any stars show up in quick exposure pictures.
5)Minimal atmosphere equals no drag equals momentum from planting the flag lasts much longer.
6)The Moon isn't a total vacuum and even if it was you could, Mythbusters proved this.

>>3551900
>>3551900
>>3551900
conspiracy fag status:

[X] STONE TOLD STEVE AUSTIN

I love this thread so much.

>>3551900
>Mythbusters proved this

I wouldn't trust mythbusters with my science further than I can throw them. Jamie didn't even know what Newton's third law was.

Inb4: trolled.

Lets stage a massive international conspiracy theory to fool the entire planet and tell them we have undertake an amazing scientific journey.

Oh, and lets be so bad at it that we won't even into science on it and allow children to run around with markers drawing C's on everything.

>implying the soviets wouldn't have called bullshit to make the US look stupid if it really was fake

>>3551910

Jamie didn't know the Third Law?!??!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

my world is shattered!!!

>>3551910
He knew exactly what it was. But he failed to recognise it behind a myth.

The same myth that that was printed in science books in america on occasions.

And also... He provided rebuttals to your arguments. You have not.

>>3551931
>implying soviets weren't in on it

>>3551900
>NASA had the technology to send a man to Mars and back
>and back
HURRRRR DURRRRR

>>3551940
in on what?

looking bad?

>>3551886

I have 8mm film of them not going to the moon.

>>3551940
because the USSR and USA were on such good terms

>>3551942
I am not understanding what you're Hurr durring about.

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

>>3551942
I guess you hadn't heard about the nuclear rocket von Braun was pushing for.

>>3551957
>>3551959
Even today, Mars is considered a one-way ticket. They've asked if people would be willing to take to journey.

>>3551937
>But he failed to recognise it behind a myth.

Right, after it was pointed out to him by his producers behind the scenes. I noticed it right away, and I'm a 21 year old kid with basic high school level education of science.

>The same myth that that was printed in science books in america on occasions.

That is absolutely retarded. Your country should feel bad.

>>3551957
http://www.news.com.au/technology/sci-tech/nasa-mars-mission-a-one-way-trip/story-fn5fsgyc-122594512
4330

>>3551963
>even today...
...we don't have nuclear rockets because HURR DURR NUKULAR.

A nuclear rocket would make the trip a whole lot easier.

>>3551963
Because public opinion is that it is a one way ticket does not mean it is. Mars Direct gets back to Earth by carrying a little bit extra hydrogen, then using the Sabatier reaction to make methane/oxygen rocket fuel to get back to Earth by combining the hydrogen with carbon dioxide in the thin Martian atmosphere.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-06-29/opinion/zubrin.mars_1_martian-life-martian-surface-red-planet/3?_
s=PM:OPINION

>>3551985
>public opinion
Try scientific consensus

>>3551965
I'd be amazed if you could name what country I'm from first guess. It's easy mode aswell. I've never lived anywhere else.

I'll give you a clue aswell. It's several thousand kilometres east of America.


The reason it was on mythbusters was it fooled so many people. Including people who are smarter then you. So the problem is not in the difficultly of the physics. It's just a well hidden problem. Congrats on having eyes.

>>3551990
Now give me the link to the scientific consensus that says bringing people back from Mars is damned near impossible. Mars Direct is not given a lot of thought, and is largely unheard of. Weaver and Zubrin worked out a modified version called Mars Semi-Direct which still costs 55 billion over 10 years, which is doable within NASA's existing budget and doesn't involve stranding people on another planet no matter what.

ITT: 6 confirmed rebuttals to the OP. Nothing but ad hominem in response.


Stay classy conspiracy-theorists.

>>3551978
Did you even read this? It says that NASA is looking for volunteers to stay there because it's too costly to bring them back. 20 settlers staying is equivalent to 4 going and coming back. It doesn't say anywhere they CAN'T bring them home, and in fact implies that they can but it would cost too much and they'd rather have people stay.

>>3552001
>few sicentists agree it works
>most disagree
How could you not understand? Mars direct is a proposal that few scientists think could work.

How did the astronauts walk on the moon if there's no gravity in space?

>>3551995
>I'd be amazed if you could name what country I'm from first guess. It's easy mode aswell. I've never lived anywhere else.

Oh yea, cause it's not like there's a fuck load of English speaking countries in the world with internet access. Hurr durrr

>The reason it was on mythbusters was it fooled so many people

It was on mythbusters because it fooled the general public. It's an urban legend because the public believes it. What the public thinks and what smart people with brains think are complete opposites. Most of the myths on that show are rubbish.

>It's just a well hidden problem

I don't see how. It's entry level physics, like you just said. It should be bloody simple to figure out if you have a clue what you're talking about.

>Congrats on having eyes.

No idea what you mean by this. Are we even talking about the same myth?

If you look closely at the picture, you'll clearly see an American flag. But the moon is not in America.

>>3552017
I hear a lot of the time 'X group of people don't like it' but I never get anything more than very vague reasons as to why. For example, when Weaver was talking about Mars Direct he said 'We thought his weight estimates were a bit optimistic' which basically just means 'You need a tiny bit more rocket fuel than you initially thought' but so far I have not heard a superior option. And another thing, seriously? Worrying about a relatively small cost such as bringing people back to a planet THAT HAS ANYTHING whereas tens, no, hundreds of billions are being funneled into unjustifiable wars?

Damn right I'm mad. "Oohhh if only it wasn't as expensive we wouldn't doom a group of people to a couple decades of isolation." NASA has either the choice of making a relatively large town on Mars which can sustain itself both in resources, equipment and entertainment, or it has to bring them home. I'm a Mars fanboy, but I can go nuts after 10 years in a cramped base in a frozen desert.

Could someone tell me what was the episode of MB where Jamie supposedly didn't know about newton's third law?

>>3552038
I understand what your saying, and it is limited to money. But there are plenty of countries who have the money (China), and have proposed other alternatives.

>>3552049
>your
Oh for fucks sake, I need to sleep.

>>3552030
lol'd

Also, if they jumped, they'd be drawn into the Earth's gravity. Totally fake.

>>3552049
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_F3pw5F_Pc&feature=player_embedded

And so when someone says, “We don’t have enough money for this space probe,” I’m asking, no, it’s not that you don’t have enough money, it’s that the distribution of money that you’re spending is warped in some way that you are removing the only thing that gives people something to dream about tomorrow.

>>3552064
That's like saying if we jumped, we'd be pulled towards the sun's gravity. The moon still has its own gravity.

>>3552072
Well to be fair, the money deservedly need to go to more important places than war or the space program. You know - health, education.

>>3552027
You said "your" country a while back. You're the one who thinks because I mentioned america in a moon landing thread that i'm from america.
I was pointing out your logical fallacy in a sarcastic way.


And yes. Newtons laws are entry level physics and can be easily understood by 15 year olds.
What's your point?

And as far as I'm aware the myth you're on about is the one involving cars crashing into static objects vs head on collisions.

and what I'm saying is that the myth caught out a lot of people. Nothing to do with intelligence at all.

>>3552075
Wouldn't it be the Great Attractor that we would float towards?

>>3552083

This is such a stupid argument.

It is not what we use the money on, it's the retarded distribution of the money being used.

>>3551914
If it was a staged set-up I don't think they would be trying to impress the whole planet... just Russia.

>>3552096
I wasn't making an argument.
A country with a debt such as America shouldn't be thinking about throwing funds at war or space colonization. Charity begins at home, right?

>>3552112
You should be throwing your funds at making space profitable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining
>At 1997 prices, a relatively small metallic asteroid with a diameter of 1 mile contains more than $20 trillion US dollars worth of industrial and precious metals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_Earth_Objects#Near-Earth_asteroids
>As of May 2010, 7,075 near-Earth asteroids are known,[14] ranging in size up to ~32 kilometers (1036 Ganymed).[16] The number of near-Earth asteroids over one kilometer in diameter is estimated to be 500 - 1,000.

>>3552112
You're right. The entire world should be throwing money at space colonization.

>All of our eggs
>In one basket

>>3552118
And then as soon as that asteroid is mined, it wouldn't be profitable to go back for 100 years.

>>3552118
>mining in space
>mining on Earth is easier/ more cost effective/ etc
>all pros, no cons
Now THAT is a stupid argument. Wait until we've gone a bit further than the moon for shit like this.

>>3552120
I didn't imply that.

>>3552038

where is that from?

>>3552124
Cheap metals means your manufacturing companies and electronics makers have a lot more profit, which means your economy gets reinvigorated and perhaps you start posting surpluses again. Transport let's say, 50 tonnes of platinum into LEO. Slow it down with a railgun that attached onto it with a small supply of whatever to fire to slow it down. Get it to crash in a desert, and then go collect your 15 tonnes of unvaporized platinum. It doesn't necessarily mean a huge mining complex with people on an asteroid, it means robots chucking mined rock into a plasma arc gasification unit for a breakdown into the constituent elements and then fired in the direction of Earth.

>>3552131
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%286178%29_1986_DA
>Asteroid 1986 DA achieved its most notable recognition when scientists revealed that it contained over "10,000 tons of gold and 100,000 tons of platinum", or an approximate value at the time of its discovery of "$90 billion for the gold and a cool trillion dollars for the platinum, plus loose change for the asteroid's 10 billion tons of iron and a billion tons of nickel."[3]

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

>>3552131
>implying it wouldn't be more cost effective to manufacture materials in orbit rather than hauling them up from earth

>>3552144
The feasibility of this in this at present day is just too low. But keep dreaming, we need dreamers.

>>3552156
Implying?
No I'm stating facts.

>>3552161
I'm actually intending on making it happen. My research project at the moment is on the feasibility and profitability of asteroid mining using current technology.

>>3552144

It's too risky, and public opinion wanes when you mention that thing about gigantic bolts of metal flying at 10 kips and the hope that the atmosphere'll slow them down.

I'd rather package the lumps of unprocessed platinium in a large bag, say, aluminized mylar so it's easily identifiable. Hydrazine tanks connected to some strong, stiff frame for verniering the thing around its trajectory, as for the main propulsion? No idea. Ion or magnetoplasma engines would be ideal, if you had some high-efficiency solar cells and perhaps could use the materials from the asteroid as reaction mass (Surely there must be some kind of gas in them, even if you have to ionize a molecule to get it?), though I think we'll be better off carrying the remass ourselves. It's slow, but with careful planning and firing the drive for long enough you could get the things into a perfect necklace of pods around the Earth, each worth a trillion or two.

Since they're in orbit, if you don't want to crash prices, you can hold them there and deliver the precise amounts you need or want and keep hogging the rest until someone comes to get it riding a Falcon 9.

>>3552166
>it costs less to haul raw materials and/or products to orbit than to produce them in situ
>this is a fact
Why don't you just give me that missive from the Fairy Queen and you can go back to Imaginationland?

>>3552184
I was also thinking about melting and molding the metal into a helicopter rotor shape, so that it drifts down instead of the usual WHHOORROOOSHHH-SMACK

>>3552144
>crash in a desert
how many asteroids are you planning to crash into the earth? and how big are these solid lumps of space metal?

>>3552206

>mfw

Also, that book I told you about? 'Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines' was written by the guy who originated the concept of the lunar self-replicating factory. Just thought you might be interested.

>>3552206
>I was also thinking about melting and molding the metal into a helicopter rotor shape, so that it drifts down instead of the usual WHHOORROOOSHHH-SMACK

>>3552207
How 'big' doesn't matter, as it could be as big as a city and as thin as paper, floating downwards. I would say that 20 tonnes going less than 3km/s when it touches into the atmosphere would not cause widespread destruction and catastrophic release of dust and debris. Have one remote corner of a desert quarantined and pelted. For precious metals I reckon 10/20 tonnes could be dropped without too much trouble. If I'm wrong changes to the payload shape can be made as I mentioned above, by emulating maple seeds and their 'helicopter' motion.

any way the future is genetically grown circuitry and fibres that can be weaved and spun in to shapes and objects.
Heavy metals are so industrial revolution it time for man made genetic evolution

>>3552213
I bookmarked it so when I get my new Kindle (old one screen broke ;o;) i'll read it then.

-Yes they did
-No they wouldn't
-There are over 3000 pictures and you're surprised at there being a curve on a rock? why would that picture be released?
-Vastly more reflective ground. Try taking a picture of the sky with a torch in front of the camera at night.
-No reason for the flag not to wave when the pole was turned. Happened twice, when the flag was put in and walked past by an astronaut, and not again for 8 hours of continuous footage.
-Yes you can. No idea where this comes from.

-

>>3552234

Surely you mean the nanotech revolution? :3

>>3552198
>a) shooting shit down and praying it doesn't get destoryed on impact
>b) mining shit from the ground
>a) is the right choice
I cannot into the concept of space mining or cost of this. Explanation please, sir.

>>3552244
Synthetic biology

First accidental visit to this Thread and here I find a communist or a mental moron
>>3551886
>>3551900
but then a tripuser go and get him told.
Good, I am out here.

>>3552248
We know how think the atmosphere is, we know that if x object with x melting temperature is travelling at this speed through this thickness atmosphere whether or not it will completely melt away. And the impact site? Yes, some of the payload will be lost into the surrounding area. But the majority will be in the crater in the sand dunes it just plowed through. And since rare earth metals are so pricey, it can pay for itself.

>>3552257

>implying diamond-based molecular machines are synthethic biology

>>3552279
they kinda are. The distinction between a self replicating nanobot and a self replicating organism is fairly arbitrary.

>>3552277
know how thick*

>>3552286

Never mentioned anything about 'nanobots'.

>>3552277
So basically it's a small profit for such a complex procedure. I still don't understand how THIS is more profitable than regular mining.

>>3552248
1. If we start mining asteroids, the shit we produce is better used to further expansion in space.

2. >>shooting shit down and praying it doesn't get destoryed on impact
WTF? Seriously? Is that how you really think bulk transport to ground would happen? Read up on the topic before you start using incorrect facts against it.

>>3552296


>>3552304
It's not small, it goes into billions of dollars. It's also only profitable for the very richest organisations, unfortunately.

>>3552279
I never implied anything. Merely just stated that one of the next big step is Synthetic biology. Did i make any mention too diamond-based molecular machines?

>>3552315
>It's not small, it goes into billions of dollars
Why hasn't anyone given an estimate to the initial cost of this?

>>3552309
I was simplying the argument, because that's the "crux" of what happens.

>>3552337
>simplying
Oh fuck this, I need to rest guys.

>>3552317

I thought you were implying synthethic biology was going to replace nanotech or that nanotech was just a placeholder name for a niche that would eventually be filled by synthethic bio.

OP here. This thread is still alive? Jesus Christ, I copypasta this thing everyday.

>>3552337
Like Inurdaes said, we know how to safely land the bulk carriers.

What's more, if you send down metallic raw materials, you could fashion the material into a lander, attach controls and drop it into the sea.

>>3552304
>small amount of profit
Lolno

You send say, one of SpaceX's rockets with a plasma gasification unit, a small nuclear reactor, and the initial mining robots. Also transported is a sheet which had indentations in it where molten metal can be poured into to make the basic parts for making more robots. And extra robots required only need small relatively lightweight things to be transported to them, such as cameras and the circuitboard. Everything else can be made onsite. Railguns can be fashioned from the metal being produced by the plasma gasification unit through the molding sheet. Everything other than initial payload and small shipments of circuitboards and fine electronics is made with no cost onboard the aforementioned asteroid.
In the process of doing the mining, rare earth metals such as niobium and ruthenium, as well as platinum and such as scooped up and glomped into a pole. This pile then can have a molded primitive version of VASMIR magnetic propulsion rockets fitted onto the side, and is flung into the orbit of Earth.
The magpropulsion then slows down the payload to something that doesn't resemble a Extinction Level Event, and crashes it into the Simpson/Gobi/Sahara/Atacama Desert. Throughout all this, you had the costs of the initial payload (let's say 50 million) then the successive launches of circuitboards (another 50 million for 5,000 robots, let's say) with of course upkeeping the company and paying people's wages in the time it takes for your first payload to come (another 25 million over 3 years) with a payoff in the BILLIONS supplying these elements to the industries that really want them. You could undercut Earth REEs by 80% and still make a crazy profit, with every company trying to do business and buy from you.

most important thing to remember here: transporting heavy matter from the earth to space is VERY EXPENSIVE because of fuel consumption. so the re real problem is our shitty, inefficient fuels.

>>3552415
You confuse science fiction with science fact.

>>3552430
What an intricate and well thought out rebuttal to my proposal.

This thread is proof that /sci/ gets a new batch of asspie summerfags everyday. Good job, OP.

>>3552440
Did you read the thread at all?

We went from responding to the troll to Mars Direct to full-blown asteroid mining base sixty posts.

>>3552509
I was more so concerned with the fact that a sage isn't attached to everyone's post in this thread.

>>3552415
Wait, so you think the cost of all of this would only be 125,000,000 US, be completed over a period of roughly three years AND would have a high success rate?

Calling bullshit.

retro-reflectors

1/10 for making me respond

>>3552440
>namefag criticizing anyone
Oh, the IRONY.

This sage is for you.

>>3552337
No idea. I haven't any information on the weight of mining equipment.
If you're willing to help though it costs about $10,000/KG to send things into orbit, at the moment. If you assume that you'll need 15 tonnes of stuff, that's $150M USD. Very, very reasonable, given the fact that there are asteroids due to pass within reach of earth in the next few decades containing 100 times that in minerals.
That said, an influx of material of that magnitude would probably dramatically affect and destabilise markets internationally. No idea what the most effective method of damage control would be.

durrrr i'm op i'm a fucking retard hurrrr

>this EXACT thread is made once or twice a week.
>it still gets 100+ posts every time
God damn /sci., stop this shit already.

>>3555002
Make me, faggot.

>>3554994
>bumps a thread that was abandoned over ten hours ago
>to insult OP for posting shit
no anon, you are teh trolls

>>3555015

bump.

If you hear the transmissions, they never pray to God. It is impossible to reach the moon without His helping hand.

Wake up, sheeple

If you look closely at the picture you can see an American flag. But the moon is not in America.

>>3555111
That was already in this thread

Russia tracked them all the way there and back. Don't you think they would of said something.

>>3555146
>implying you'd know if they had

>>3555161
what?

>>3555164
If Russia had said something, you wouldn't know.

Also,
>would of
It's would have.

1) Yes we did
2) Shielding. And the Van allen radiation belts? Yeah, they went through the thinnest parts.
3) It was actually a hair or fiber that was on the photo when it was printed.
4) The bright surroundings would have made quick photos blind to stars. If one was to get a nice long exposure looking straight into blackness, one could probably see stars.
5) Waved longer due to no air resistance. And don't tell me that looked ANYTHING like a flag waving on Earth, it did not.
6) Yes you can.

>>3555130
And?