Mission to Mars - Life on Mars

My understanding is that orbital velocity is over 5000 mph on the moon. The mass is over 40 times as great as the mars lander. So even using your figure of 2000 mph still leaves a greater kinetic energy to be absorbed. Time spent in orbit is immaterial. As the old saying goes it is not the fall that kills you it is the sudden stop. If the craft was traveling at even 20mph at landing the KE of a mass of 15000 kg would burst all the legs. Think of
a 15000 kg truck crashing against a solid object. Anyone who would take thatmission would be suicidal and most attemps at hard landing were failures by both the soviets and the US.
Auditor. Forget about the moons gravity as it would increase the speed. Even with zero gravity to make things harder the task of reducing the speed down to almost zero for a soft landing using only rockets with the technology of 40 years ago is not on. They would not be able to do it today and will not attempt it for another 20 years.
Here is how I remember it on RTE. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5570979309494212115&q=moon+landing+hoax&ei=QEU8SMHcH4im-QGe8vXwAw&hl=en

The Shuttle - 1970's technology!

Which bit of this do you not believe YD ? All of it ? Or just the moon landing bit ? Do you believe any of the Apollo missions were real ? Do you believe the Russians ?

Lot's of questions there, but I need to know which bit(s) you have a problem with.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Which bit of this do you not believe YD ? All of it ? Or just the moon landing bit ? Do you believe any of the Apollo missions were real ? Do you believe the Russians ?

Lot's of questions there, but I need to know which bit(s) you have a problem with.

The 20th century, I think.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Which bit of this do you not believe YD ? All of it ? Or just the moon landing bit ? Do you believe any of the Apollo missions were real ? Do you believe the Russians ?

Lot's of questions there, but I need to know which bit(s) you have a problem with.

There was an 'if you believe, they put a man on the moon' thread here a while ago.
https://machinenation.forumakers.com/the-valve-f15/i-am-a-moonie-t149.htm#2776

EVM. Here is a clip from the moon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMINSD7MmT4 Just have a listen to the conversation. Don't even bother with the video just concentrate on the audio. You will realise there is no time delay from Houstan to the moon and back. As you know radio waves travel at 186000 mph so the round trip takes 4 seconds. This is no different from the fact on Sunday that it took 8 minutes for the radio waves to return from Mars.
They never left Earth orbit but circled for the duration. Anyone that believes they landed on the moon are real loons

Wouldn't the Russians have spotted them?

The Chinese at the time said the whole thing was fake. I remember the cold war well. The Russians were going to kill everybody but yet the West was sending them millions of tons of grain yearly and the banks were keeping them financially alive.
It seems noone wants to discuss the impossibility of a radio conversation to the moon without a time delay.

youngdan wrote:

The Chinese at the time said the whole thing was fake. I remember the cold war well. The Russians were going to kill everybody but yet the West was sending them millions of tons of grain yearly and the banks were keeping them financially alive.
It seems noone wants to discuss the impossibility of a radio conversation to the moon without a time delay.

Not based on a Youtube video that has probably been recut 1000 times since 1969.

Do you need to know what they are saying?

Now, they are having a conversation on that clip with no delay. I'm assuming the videos of the moon landing were edited to take the delay out - it wouldn't be publishable without such editing. If the conversation was between Phoenix Mars astronauts and Hoosten then there would be a 15minutes and 20second delay between one ++ over ++ and the next reply.

I don't know what the earth-moon delay is for radio but it's not simultaneous, is it? The videos were edited for tv viewing... Is that any way sensible?

I watched it live and don't remember any delay. The delay would have been explained to us numerous times by Cockburn on RTE if there was a 4 second delay . Why would the delay be edited out later. Maybe EVM can find a clip of the 4 second delay for us enquiring minds

youngdan wrote:

I watched it live and don't remember any delay. The delay would have been explained to us numerous times by Cockburn on RTE if there was a 4 second delay . Why would the delay be edited out later. Maybe EVM can find a clip of the 4 second delay for us enquiring minds

Ah. There's the difference.

In this instance, what you call an enquiring mind, I call a nutball.

Dan, you cannot in all seriousness expect to challenge something as massive as the moon landing, with fuck all evidence apart from youtube links. Get a grip ffs.

Yes I do have an engineering degree
Yes I do have 20 years experience in electronics design
Yes it is at this stage, very fuckin difficult to pull this wooly hat over my eyes.

I've had quite enough of this malshaggery now, and I don't intend to respond to this thread again, unless it gets back on topic, which is the Mars Mission.

Dan, you are well within your rights to believe what you want to believe. As much as it ruins your credibility.

I guess you have no answer to the fact that there is no time delay then

I have asked someone who watched it live and they do remember a time delay. It was all part of the excitement.
I have worked in television editing and I would put no pass whatsoever on the timing on a video. Auditor #9 asked answered your question perfectly well.

Also, - there is no way that the Russians would not have spotted it and put it out there. They might well have started the spin that it was fake though. It sounds just like a Pravda story of the 1960s.

Time will tell on this and my opinion will be well remembered with scorn should the chinese send back pictures proving me wrong. They have an orbiter mapping the surface since last Autumn. All I am left to do is find out what malshaggery is.

Yes I have signed off on this topic as I said above

Mars lander uncovers signs of ice

Quote :

Nasa's new robotic craft on Mars may be resting on a large patch of ice.

The latest images sent to Earth reveal tantalising glimpses of what looks like frozen water.

Scientists think the Phoenix Mars lander's descent engine may have blown away a layer of dirt, exposing the ice.

The craft's robotic arm reached out and touched the soil for the first time, leaving behind a striking, footprint-like impression, they said on Sunday.

The robotic arm was making a test run, just one week after the landing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7431264.stm

I saw a report which I must read through where there was a electrical malfunction. The job of getting that thing done in one piece was a great achieve.ment

More ice may have been found just under the surface, according to Leo Enright on RTE radio today and the BBC on Friday. If confirmed to be water it could start people wondering what the mining prospects on Mars would be - maybe it's filled with gold, uranium or other elements, minerals ?

As Leo Enright rightly said, it's not the Lisbon Treaty that people will be talking about in 400 years time but this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7465419.stm

That looks like sherbert dip. Surely the ice wouldn't be that clean/white ?

Surely they have instrumentation on the machinery that can generate a spectrum analysis? Why all this speculation and guessing? These scientists are being paid millions to investigate ice and are now coming out with vague and fanciful hypotheses when categorical proof should be forthcoming; in fact, this whole mission reminds me of a certain tribunal .

Also, has the "ice" melted or has it just been covered by dust? I notice there has been a lot of activity in the bottom left shadowed section of the trench in the same period.

They think it melted but yeah shouldn't there be specific instruments there to tell them if it's water or not ? It could be silica or salt they think (?)

Auditor #9 wrote:

They think it melted but yeah shouldn't there be specific instruments there to tell them if it's water or not ? It could be silica or salt they think (?)

It could be indeed, though the article on slashdot seems to confirm that it is indeed ice which sublimates;

"Scientists have figured out the mysterious white substance unearthed by NASA's Phoenix lander on Mars. It's frozen water. The breakthrough came last week when Phoenix's stereo camera caught the substance in the act of disappearing. Bathed in martian sunlight for four days, the white substance sublimated — i.e., it transformed from solid to gas without passing through the liquid state. This is how water behaves on Mars.... Some readers have asked, how do we know the white substance is not frozen CO2 (dry ice) instead of frozen water? Answer: Phoenix's landing site is too warm for dry ice. The average daily temperature is about -70 F while dry ice requires temperatures lower than about -109 F."

Also in London Indo today

Martian soil 'good enough for asparagus'

I wonder how much solar energy falls on the surface of Mars if a Colony of any kind was to be set up there ? There's no or very little atmosphere so it's always sunny... I'd love to know what it would be like in terms of the earth - would it be like North Norway in Spring or something.