Man Can't Build A Spacecraft To Take Off And Land On Another Surface.

So everything you say is a lie? Then why should I believe you?

If everything I say is a lie then I'm not really a Mason, or 27-years of age, or member of the US Army, or the son of a cop, or...and you get the picture.

 

you are dogmatic

polscie

 

had I believe in Moses.
had I believe in Jesus Christ.

had I believe in the claim of God.
had I believe in The BIble, then the basis of my words are lies,
because moses , jesus christ, the claim of god and the bible are all
the creation of lies.

if you put things into proper context this will shed you some lights.

it is up to you.

polscie

 

I think its possible but not feasible at the current time. I am really not too upset that we haven't been working on that type of technology. However, I am still angry at our scientific establishment for losing our earth to space ability and especially angry for the lack of manned missions after the moon missions. Just think where we would be if we implemented logical steps. We would have had a permanent base on the moon by now and maybe one on mars. Gd I get upset about being lied to. Even now we could develop Orion, a nuclear pulse engine. It should have been in operation in decades ago, stil its viable and doable today. (an understatement because it uses 1950's to 60's technology). Orion has the capacity to exceed 11% c and could do it in a few years! That would make the solar system highly assessable, and the near stars seem a lot closer! We could have built such a craft back in 1970, however sickeningly like manned missions, and our own superconducting super collider like the LHC*, it suffered from apathy and is for all practical purposes DEAD.

* Our own LHC type atom smasher was killed (it was located in TX) after spending a vast sum of money;

LHC - CERN
lhc.web.cern.ch/
Accelerates proton beams up to the rate of 7 TeV using thousands of magnets in a large facility near Geneva, Switzerland. Includes general overview, FAQ, trivia ...http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

Superconducting Super Collider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_Super_Collider
1 Development; 2 Cancellation; 3 Comparison to the Large Hadron Collider ... After an extensive Department of Energy review during the mid-1980s, a site ... desire to generally reduce spending; the reluctance of Texas Governor Ann Richards; .... I want you to know of my continuing support for the Superconducting Super .

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

Rev A

 

I am afraid you are truly in the darkness. You can believe in a creator which is more logical that the universe just happened, and still embrace science. To rule out any option is to be close minded and that got us book burnings at Alexandria and Nazi Germany etc. I do not want to be a part of that kind of Brownshirt thinking inside the cubical (box) so I am religious and a Metaphysicalist (not a logical positivist).

Rev A

 

Well, luckily for the human race, the people who invent things like spacecraft DO read books, that's why we're not still in the Dark Ages (well, most of us, anyway). Apparently, you don't read posts either (at least the ones that obliterate your "argument"), like the post about how we have already done a soft landing on an asteroid, and the post about the nuclear pulse engine (which utilizes the "lasting" fuel source). I could understand your viewpoint coming from a pre-industrial person, but for a modern person to say it is "impossible" is so ridiculous that I don't believe you could actually believe that. As a previous poster wrote, "No one is that stupid by accident".

 

For what purpose? This has always been the issue with manned space exploration. There's just not much reason to bother. Robots are far, far less expensive and can usually do as good a job, or better. "We" haven't lost the ability to send things from Earth to space, we've lost the ability to send humans from Earth to space. This is because the "scientific establishment", such as it is, would rather focus their limited funding on useful, worthwhile scientific objectives, rather than incredibly expensive advertising campaigns.

Really, truly ask yourself what purpose manned space exploration serves. If the only answer you can come up with involves long-term mission profiles, like moon bases and space colonies, ask yourself whether you really consider this kind of extended funding likely to happen. I think any rational person can see that such long-term objectives are not on the table in the foreseeable future due both to budget constraints and a lack of suitable missions. This is why the manned space program has lapsed.

It seems unlikely that there will be no real interest in manned space exploration unless someone builds a space elevator to get the costs down.

It's theoretically viable, but there's a long way from theoretically viable to "doable". No one has ever actually built or tested nuclear exposion powered spacecraft. Saying that Orion is "doable" because it works out on paper ignores all the lessons taught by the rocket program, which also worked out well on paper, yet required decades to actually work out the engineering.

The solar system is already fairly accessible from Earth orbit. The issue is getting from the ground into orbit. That's where most of the cost lies. You seriously can't see why you wouldn't want to launch ships from Earth's surface using nuclear pulse propulsion? You don't see a nuclear proliferation risk from the nuclear charges?

We're not exactly flush with cash right now. It's hard to build up support for large engineering projects when the LHC hasn't yet reached the end of its ability to perform useful science. In other words, why keep making new supercolliders when the one that's currently being used hasn't yet tapped out what it can do? It's not like American scientists can't use the LHC for experiments if they go through the same process as anyone else.

Right now what we really need are lots of smaller, more cost-effective scientific programs. The time to propose megaprojects is not during a global economic recession.

 

Because man is capable
of a lot more
than I am capable of

Just because
someone can do something
you cant
doesnt mean
that
it
is impossible
to
do.

 

lol

There is nothing in physics that prevents what the OP described.

Epic fail.

 

Do you happen to believe in God?

 

Besides the other atmosphere part, we did it almost 50 years ago.

 

The Internet, in a nutshell.