NASA warns two asteroids hurtling closer to Earth than the MOON in 20,000mph

Well then I guess there's no more to be said, because we're 'worlds apart'? And I can think of plenty of reasons for the global scientific community to conspire - think 'jobs for life' for starters?

 

It's clear that you don't know any academics and don't understand the very real competition between superpowers.

There's nothing that an academic likes more than being able to completely ruin a rival. Any opportunity to expose their work as being flawed, much less completely faked, would be seized with glee. No global scientific conspiracy could possibly resist this level of pettiness.

The competition between superpowers is the same writ large. The Russians would have loved to be able to show that the Apollo moon ,missions were fake because it would have been a huge blow to the US' global prestige. Likewise debunking the Lunokhod programme would have been in the US' interest.

 

For ease of reference, I've highlighted the bits that I thing cerberus would challenge.

- moon landings, manned or otherwise never happened
- laser can't go that far even if the mirrors existed
- Speed of light not a constant
- Cannot measure the time because a laser can't go that far

 

I have personally posted such things, as well as the video you complain of and you "Could Not be Bothered" to even watch let alone learn. I will not "Be Bothered" to post the numbers and watch you disregard them again. Quite simply put, if you seriously think NASA spent millions to create some extremely quality fakes and have a Gobi Desert facility or extremely skilled CGI personnel and technology, there is no point regardless because you are not sane.

 

That's the problem it's not a matter of belief, it's about facts.

Science doesn't care what people believe

This is your whole issue with Science, as soon as you can't comprehend you dismiss.

Either through pure ignorance, fear of admitting you can't understand or a willful attempt to troll.

I'm just not sure which one

One last attempt if you are interested in distance to the moon and don't believe (there's that word again) lasers can reach that far, parallax measurements can be used to calculate the distance to the moon

http://www.etwright.org/astro/moonpar.html

I know we have discussed parallax before which you agreed worked when measuring the distance to a far tree for example but then you claim it somehow fails to work when measuring much larger distances.

 

I once thought he was trolling and playing mind games, after much interaction however I have come to understand it is the first option and have learned to consider him in the light of a 5 yr. old after too much sugar.

 

I see...so multi quote or copy paste are fake as well?

 

I think the real problem here is what evidence you would accept.

Did you ever watch a space shuttle launch? Have you ever used one of the "finder" sites that helps you see the international space station from your backyard? Have you spotted any of the numerous manmade satellites that can be seen with the naked eye as they orbit earth?

I think you have to build up to the more amazing feats - landing on the moon, putting a bunch of little "rovers" on the surface of Mars, visiting Pluto, landing on an asteroid, etc.

 

If they got into that kind of one-upmanship it would blow the 'industry' wide open, and the cat would be out of the bag for them . . . and they know it. If you'll forgive me for saying so - for an obviously intelligent man you do seem to be a bit naive.

I'm done here. There are too many other threads I want to join.

 

I don't understand the science of aerospace engineering but I don't dismiss it, nor do I dismiss any other science, so what do you make of that? Incidentally, the moon is relatively speaking a hop, skip, and jump away, not 35.8 million miles from us.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/scie...hen-will-what-is-distance-earth-and-mars-july

 

Yes, I've seen the space station, Will, and I've even got a 3D video of it all working and find it mildly interesting. And I don't deny that 'the universe is up there', it's just that I'm not interested in it because it has no effect upon my life or lifestyle. I'm not obsessed by it, in other words? Indeed, I could quite easily buy a professional telescope if I were interested. But 'landing on an asteroid'? That I don't believe, but I'm not going there because this thread is beginning to bore me, and I miss talking about other stuff on other threads. Ciao for now.

 

I know academics, they's happily burn their own house down if they thought it would be worse for a rival.

More importantly, the Soviets (or Americans) wold have jumped at the chance to show that the Americans (or Soviets) had been faking their achievements, it would have have been a huge blow to the other's prestige.

That's OK, when you wake up I'm sure you'll find it's all a bad D-ream.

 

Maybe so, but as I suggested earlier, it would have run the risk of opening up a can of worms if an error of information were inadvertently made in the narrative of one or other of them?

Whatever - we're done here . . . or at least I am!! You seem to want it to last forever. lol

 

I try to avoid arguments from incredulity but to suggest that there is an international cabal of scientists who are working in concert to propagate the global space scam and that they are more powerful than governments really boggles the mind.

Anyone who has spent any time around academics will know that trying to get them to do anything is like herding cats.

As I'm sure you know - You ain't never gonna know me, but I know you

 

I know - there are a lot of things that boggle my mind these days, but that's the world we live in?

 

Conspiracy theorists say the darndest things.

 

Landing on an asteroid and in flight refueling are not much different but perhaps you think that in flight refueling is also a conspiracy between government agencies?

 

Another one-liner from Cosmo. Wake up and smell it, Cosmo, you're being suckered.

 

Nothing like it! In-flight re-fuelling requires two pilots using their skills to match each other's mechanical (think 'engines'?) thrust and speed thence to connect in a controlled fashion. The same doesn't apply to a dumb man-made device randomly locating an asteroid somewhere in the vastness of space moving at 300,000mph, tracking it during the attempt to catch up, and then having caught up with it, maintaining the identical speed whilst simultaneously slowly descending with the intention of firstly, identifying a flat surface (diffiult enough when we think of 'a rock'?), and secondly, having identified one, actually landing on it, by which time (between catching up and the actual touch-down?) the asteroid has travelled onwards for another thousand miles, therefore isn't there for the effing probe to land on. Y'all must think was born yesterday?? And why am I answering when I've said that I'd finished with this thread? I just hope you've learnt something from it!

 

As long as the asteroid is moving in a predicable way, it's just a matter of classical mechanics, understood since Newton and Keppler's day.

If you were interested, I'd be a matter of just looking how this is done, but you aren't so you won't.

 

So what's the method of propulsion of the notional probe; and who actually controls its speed and direction, thence the descent, and by what means?

 

If you're interested, here's a summary:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosetta_(spacecraft)#Deep_space_manoeuvres

 

As I've said, I don't consider Wiki as a reliable or dependable source because it can so easily be edited by anybody with an agenda. For example the above link could have been edited, or even originated, by NASA or some other space agency?

 

You really don't understand do you.

If we were in separate cars both traveling at 50mph 100m apart then we wouldn't get any closer. If I then started doing 51mph I would start getting closer at 1mph. If the cars were doing 100mph and then I started doing 101mph I would still only be getting closer at 1mph. Same applies if both objects are doing 20,000 mph if the trailing one (the probe) increased to 20,001 mph the closing rate would be exactly the same in all 3 examples.

If the probe and asteroid matched speeds, when the asteroid has moved 1000 miles so has the probe it would be exactly the same distance away

 

Yes, I know all about relative speeds, I've been a driver for enough years, but are you telling me that, if it were possible the probe was at the same speed as the asteroid, but 50 feet above it, would it be able to maintain forward momentum at the same time as descending, but still make a soft landing? Of course it wouldn't, we're talking split seconds and blinks of eyes here, and the probe would be destroyed on contact. And as I've recently asked - who would be controlling all these events, and by what means? If it's someone in mission control, is there a tv camera in the nose of the probe so the controller can ascertain a suitable landing surface, then tweak a little lever which will lower the probe? Do you seriously believe all of that? If you do, you're the one who 'really doesn't understand', not me.