Nasa Major Announcement Regarding Mars On the 28th: What Will It be?

[MakingMoneyHoney]

Did you notice the cute comment on the MythBusters page, "The episode proves that landing on the Moon can be reproduced in studio
Knock, knock – wake up!"

No, the episode does not prove that.

Proof that the Moon Landing was not faked is not proof that the Moon Landing could have been faked.

Once again you reply to me as if I said it. That was a quote. That's why there are quotation marks around it and a link for a reference. What I said, was it was a "cute comment". Do you have anything to say about the cuteness of the comment?

[1714661073]

1714661073

[1714661073]

1714661073

[1714661073]

1714661073

[BADecker]

Did you notice the cute comment on the MythBusters page, "The episode proves that landing on the Moon can be reproduced in studio
Knock, knock – wake up!"

No, the episode does not prove that.

Proof that the Moon Landing was not faked is not proof that the Moon Landing could have been faked.

Once again you reply to me as if I said it. That was a quote. That's why there are quotation marks around it and a link for a reference. What I said, was it was a "cute comment". Do you have anything to say about the cuteness of the comment?

The point is, that when you have MythBusters using a studio that was far smaller than the one used for faking the moon landings, it doesn't really prove anything.

Again, when checking out the info at http://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm and many other websites, it is becoming very evident that, even if mankind went to the moon, the evidence of it that is out in the public is fake.

[criptix]

did you guys watched the youtube video that proofs that the dark age and holocaust is a hoax? 

(i really dont want to discuss fake moon landings or whatever, just wanted to point out that youtube videos arent the best sources)

[MakingMoneyHoney]

did you guys watched the youtube video that proofs that the dark age and holocaust is a hoax? 

(i really dont want to discuss fake moon landings or whatever, just wanted to point out that youtube videos arent the best sources)

That's a strawman fallacy. No one was using youtube videos to prove the moon landings were fake in this thread.

[criptix]

did you guys watched the youtube video that proofs that the dark age and holocaust is a hoax? 

(i really dont want to discuss fake moon landings or whatever, just wanted to point out that youtube videos arent the best sources)

That's a strawman fallacy. No one was using youtube videos to prove the moon landings were fake in this thread.

I neither see a strawman argument nor a logical fallacy on my side.
My argument covers the ongoing discussion pretty good imho

*edit

Btw. How to land on the moon if you cant cross the van allen belt?

[Amitabh S]

This is indeed very important news. We have all heard it but have you seen the awesome photos?
Below I present the actual picture of liquid water on Mars.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

did you guys watched the youtube video that proofs that the dark age and holocaust is a hoax? 

(i really dont want to discuss fake moon landings or whatever, just wanted to point out that youtube videos arent the best sources)

That's a strawman fallacy. No one was using youtube videos to prove the moon landings were fake in this thread.

I neither see a strawman argument nor a logical fallacy on my side.
My argument covers the ongoing discussion pretty good imho

*edit

Btw. How to land on the moon if you cant cross the van allen belt?

See, the misdirection of Spendy has you thinking this. The videos weren't proving we can't cross the van allen belts. The videos were proving people from NASA say we can't. There's a difference. See if you can see it. Spendy sure couldn't.

[Wilikon]

Flowing Water On Mars indicates that LIFE CAN HAPPEN ON MARS. (Screw the religious people )

We'll know in 2020 if life also exists there.  A planned mission will return Martian soil to the Earth for analysis. 

Great time to be alive and not brainwashed! 

That would be very, very interesting if it could return say, a thousand samples from diverse locations. 

Something like that might actually be near term possible these days.

We do not have geostationary labs for deeper sample analysis... Yet there will be point when it would be safer to have a lunar base (for example), when we start bringing stuff back home.

Martian microbes are a more urgent danger than little green men
Technology must ensure planetary landers do not bring bacterial doom, writes Anjana Ahuja


Fabulous discoveries are often followed by exceedingly dull paperwork, such as the checking and rechecking of data, graphs, statistical analyses and conclusions. This week’s announcement that scientists had found evidence of briny water on Mars will have had many experts reaching for the small print of Nasa Policy Directive 8020.7G.

The directive is required reading for those who send spacecraft to hunt for extraterrestrial life. It codifies the etiquette for “planetary protection” — preventing earthlings and their emissaries from contaminating their celestial bodies (known as forwards contamination), and arguably more importantly, guarding against the encroachment of alien microbes into the terrestrial biosphere (backwards contamination).

While the concerns about our germs hitchhiking to other worlds date back to the 1950s, this week’s revelation — and its implications for the possibility of life elsewhere in the solar system — should prompt an urgent reappraisal of how we maintain the absolute integrity of both the Martian and terrestrial biospheres.

The evidence for water flowing on the red planet was gathered by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, a Nasa spacecraft launched in 2005, with images that showed dark streaks down the walls of a crater. The streaks were found to carry the infrared signature of hydrated salts, which is regarded as a proxy for water.

The results were published on Monday in Nature Geoscience. They were prefigured, however, in images dating back to Mariner 9, which began orbiting Mars in 1971. These revealed a world seemingly sculpted by liquid: valleys and canyons, ancient river beds and branching canals. Even in the 1960s, Earth-based observations suggested the spectral signature of water vapour in the thin Martian atmosphere.

A succession of orbiters and landers added layers of evidence: polar caps comprising vast quantities of water ice, rocks and pebbles rounded and smoothed as if by water, clumps of material dug up by a robotic arm which subsequently vaporised, indicating subsurface water, permafrost-like patterns beneath the scarlet dust.

What made Monday’s announcement significant was its confirmation that liquid water flows on the planet’s surface today, albeit only seasonally. Mars is smaller than Earth with a much weaker gravitational field; it had been postulated that liquid water would just float away.

Astrobiologists, who study the origins of life in the universe, are thrilled: their guiding principle is to “follow the water”, since all known life, or life forms, need water for survival.

There is a class of extremophiles — organisms that survive in extreme environments — which thrive in salty, dehydrated surroundings. Scientists have found such “halophiles” in the ultra-dry Atacama Desert in Chile, in the form of microbes living in salt crystals (they absorb moisture from the atmosphere). Halophiles often contain a protein called bacteriorhodopsin; this might narrow the search for a smoking gun for life on Mars.

The obligation of space agencies to prevent contamination of Earth and other planets is stated in the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty, which started life as a means of preventing the Moon and planets being used for hostile purposes. Earlier this year, astrobiologists raised concerns that ultra-sensitive space instruments and their associated electronics were now made of materials too delicate to withstand heat sterilisation.

While that is usually fine for orbiters, which do not land, it poses a challenge to missions such as Nasa’s Mars 2020 mission, due to touch down on the Red Planet after 2020.

There is an urgent need to develop the technology required to make sure future landers are not the bringers of bacterial doom. As humanity embarks on a search for Martian life in the brine, we must ensure that our methods are ethically watertight.

https://next.ft.com/content/7a5073e0-66c0-11e5-a57f-21b88f7d973f

[Spendulus]

did you guys watched the youtube video that proofs that the dark age and holocaust is a hoax? 

(i really dont want to discuss fake moon landings or whatever, just wanted to point out that youtube videos arent the best sources)

That's a strawman fallacy. No one was using youtube videos to prove the moon landings were fake in this thread.

I neither see a strawman argument nor a logical fallacy on my side.
My argument covers the ongoing discussion pretty good imho

*edit

Btw. How to land on the moon if you cant cross the van allen belt?

You would start from low earth orbit, and simply set an orbit which avoided the belts.  This would obviously not be on the plane of the sun and the planets.   The orbit would loop out past the Moon, and would be calculated to intersect the Moon on the spacecraft's way back.

It's not the fastest method or the safest - that is the Hohmann maneuver used by Apollo.  Also it would limit the landing sites.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit

[Spendulus]

See, the misdirection of Spendy has you thinking this. The videos weren't proving we can't cross the van allen belts. The videos were proving people from NASA say we can't. There's a difference. See if you can see it. Spendy sure couldn't.

No, the "videos do not prove" any such thing.  Facts prove things.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

See, the misdirection of Spendy has you thinking this. The videos weren't proving we can't cross the van allen belts. The videos were proving people from NASA say we can't. There's a difference. See if you can see it. Spendy sure couldn't.

No, the "videos do not prove" any such thing.  Facts prove things.

So do you think the pope visited the US and talked to the UN and congress recently? If you weren't there, how can you believe the TV? They only have video proof for you.

[Spendulus]

See, the misdirection of Spendy has you thinking this. The videos weren't proving we can't cross the van allen belts. The videos were proving people from NASA say we can't. There's a difference. See if you can see it. Spendy sure couldn't.

No, the "videos do not prove" any such thing.  Facts prove things.

So do you think the pope visited the US and talked to the UN and congress recently? If you weren't there, how can you believe the TV? They only have video proof for you.

First of all the links that you have quoted do, as I said, cut and snip Kelly Smith's talk.  They superimpose imagery and words on top of his snipped sections.  To make it simple, they lie about what he said.  That's what you seem to be somehow in favor of.  No, Kelly Smith didn't say we can't cross the van allen belts.  No, your videos don't prove people from NASA say we can't cross them.  No, you don't have a point.

Here is the unabridged video of Smith.

http://www.space.com/27560-orion-capsule-test-flight-video.html

Here are some parts of his talk -

can harm the guidance computer...pass through twice...once up and once back...shielding will be put to the test...

...we must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space...

Once it breaks away from Earth, the Orion capsule will pass through the Van Allen Belts, huge swaths of radiation that could wreak havoc on a spacecraft's electronic equipment. The data Orion collects when passing through the belts will help engineers design shielding that can safeguard the craft during future human missions, Smith said.

This is a talk about an operational systems test of the capsule that involves sending it through the belts before sending the capsule up with people in it. 

Would you like to get real please?

If you don't, I suggest you simply email Kelly and ask him your questions.  This is not complicated.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

See, the misdirection of Spendy has you thinking this. The videos weren't proving we can't cross the van allen belts. The videos were proving people from NASA say we can't. There's a difference. See if you can see it. Spendy sure couldn't.

No, the "videos do not prove" any such thing.  Facts prove things.

So do you think the pope visited the US and talked to the UN and congress recently? If you weren't there, how can you believe the TV? They only have video proof for you.

First of all the links that you have quoted do, as I said, cut and snip Kelly Smith's talk.  They superimpose imagery and words on top of his snipped sections.  To make it simple, they lie about what he said.  That's what you seem to be somehow in favor of.  No, Kelly Smith didn't say we can't cross the van allen belts.  No, your videos don't prove people from NASA say we can't cross them.  No, you don't have a point.

Here is the unabridged video of Smith.

http://www.space.com/27560-orion-capsule-test-flight-video.html

Here are some parts of his talk -

can harm the guidance computer...pass through twice...once up and once back...shielding will be put to the test...

...we must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space...

Once it breaks away from Earth, the Orion capsule will pass through the Van Allen Belts, huge swaths of radiation that could wreak havoc on a spacecraft's electronic equipment. The data Orion collects when passing through the belts will help engineers design shielding that can safeguard the craft during future human missions, Smith said.

This is a talk about an operational systems test of the capsule that involves sending it through the belts before sending the capsule up with people in it. 

Would you like to get real please?

If you don't, I suggest you simply email Kelly and ask him your questions.  This is not complicated.

He says, "...we must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space...". If they don't know how to solve these problems to get people through that area of space now (in 2015), then how did they do it in 1969?

[Spendulus]

See, the misdirection of Spendy has you thinking this. The videos weren't proving we can't cross the van allen belts. The videos were proving people from NASA say we can't. There's a difference. See if you can see it. Spendy sure couldn't.

No, the "videos do not prove" any such thing.  Facts prove things.

So do you think the pope visited the US and talked to the UN and congress recently? If you weren't there, how can you believe the TV? They only have video proof for you.

First of all the links that you have quoted do, as I said, cut and snip Kelly Smith's talk.  They superimpose imagery and words on top of his snipped sections.  To make it simple, they lie about what he said.  That's what you seem to be somehow in favor of.  No, Kelly Smith didn't say we can't cross the van allen belts.  No, your videos don't prove people from NASA say we can't cross them.  No, you don't have a point.

Here is the unabridged video of Smith.

http://www.space.com/27560-orion-capsule-test-flight-video.html

Here are some parts of his talk -

can harm the guidance computer...pass through twice...once up and once back...shielding will be put to the test...

...we must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space...

Once it breaks away from Earth, the Orion capsule will pass through the Van Allen Belts, huge swaths of radiation that could wreak havoc on a spacecraft's electronic equipment. The data Orion collects when passing through the belts will help engineers design shielding that can safeguard the craft during future human missions, Smith said.

This is a talk about an operational systems test of the capsule that involves sending it through the belts before sending the capsule up with people in it.  

Would you like to get real please?

If you don't, I suggest you simply email Kelly and ask him your questions.  This is not complicated.

He says, "...we must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space...". If they don't know how to solve these problems to get people through that area of space now (in 2015), then how did they do it in 1969?

No part of your statement is true.  No more than your links accurately reflected what "NASA says," or "What a NASA engineer said."

See, the misdirection of Spendy has you thinking this. The videos weren't proving we can't cross the van allen belts. The videos were proving people from NASA say we can't. There's a difference. See if you can see it. Spendy sure couldn't.


Testing a spacecraft is standard practice.  It was done with Apollo, and it is being done with Orion.  It's as if you intentionally mistake things.  

Well, you got caught.

The concern is clearly stated as to the electronics being a matter of concern.  If your car's computer and sensors quit, your car would quit.  Was that true in 1969?  nope, because none of today's miniaturized electronics existed.  Regardless, systems testing is good practice.

Again, I invite you to simply ask your question to Kelly Smith, if you actually believe he said things - or implied things - that he didn't.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

See, the misdirection of Spendy has you thinking this. The videos weren't proving we can't cross the van allen belts. The videos were proving people from NASA say we can't. There's a difference. See if you can see it. Spendy sure couldn't.

No, the "videos do not prove" any such thing.  Facts prove things.

So do you think the pope visited the US and talked to the UN and congress recently? If you weren't there, how can you believe the TV? They only have video proof for you.

First of all the links that you have quoted do, as I said, cut and snip Kelly Smith's talk.  They superimpose imagery and words on top of his snipped sections.  To make it simple, they lie about what he said.  That's what you seem to be somehow in favor of.  No, Kelly Smith didn't say we can't cross the van allen belts.  No, your videos don't prove people from NASA say we can't cross them.  No, you don't have a point.

Here is the unabridged video of Smith.

http://www.space.com/27560-orion-capsule-test-flight-video.html

Here are some parts of his talk -

can harm the guidance computer...pass through twice...once up and once back...shielding will be put to the test...

...we must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space...

Once it breaks away from Earth, the Orion capsule will pass through the Van Allen Belts, huge swaths of radiation that could wreak havoc on a spacecraft's electronic equipment. The data Orion collects when passing through the belts will help engineers design shielding that can safeguard the craft during future human missions, Smith said.

This is a talk about an operational systems test of the capsule that involves sending it through the belts before sending the capsule up with people in it.  

Would you like to get real please?

If you don't, I suggest you simply email Kelly and ask him your questions.  This is not complicated.

He says, "...we must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space...". If they don't know how to solve these problems to get people through that area of space now (in 2015), then how did they do it in 1969?

No part of your statement is true.  No more than your links accurately reflected what "NASA says," or "What a NASA engineer said."

See, the misdirection of Spendy has you thinking this. The videos weren't proving we can't cross the van allen belts. The videos were proving people from NASA say we can't. There's a difference. See if you can see it. Spendy sure couldn't.


Testing a spacecraft is standard practice.  It was done with Apollo, and it is being done with Orion.  It's as if you intentionally mistake things.  

Well, you got caught.

The concern is clearly stated as to the electronics being a matter of concern.  If your car's computer and sensors quit, your car would quit.  Was that true in 1969?  nope, because none of today's miniaturized electronics existed.  Regardless, systems testing is good practice.

Again, I invite you to simply ask your question to Kelly Smith, if you actually believe he said things - or implied things - that he didn't.

Right, deflecting from what I was actually talking about... strawman fallacies. I agree testing a spacecraft is always a standard practice, but of course that has nothing to do with what I was originally talking about.

If they knew how to get through the radiation in 1969, then they should know how to get through the radiation now.

But thanks for showing he said what I said he said.

"Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, on-board computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back. But Orion has protection, shielding will be put to the test...Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for us to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space..."

What you're saying is that because there is a different technology (miniaturized electronics) on Orion, it may malfunction when it goes through the Van Allen Belts, which is why they're testing it without humans first. What he should have said, "We must solve these challenges before we can send people in Orion through these areas of space". Because everyone knows we've already sent people through these areas of space.

So how did they protect the previous 1969 Apollo mission's guidance systems, on-board computers, or other electronics? Because they were bigger back then, they were more protected? Why didn't they test the radiation levels back then to figure out how to get their electronics through the Van Allen Belt back in '69?

Oh you want me to ask them. I don't care. My point was he said they need to study up, get the radiation information, by sending Orion up through the Van Allen Belts, so they can then actually get humans up there. Which is what he said.

[Spendulus]

See, the misdirection of Spendy has you thinking this. The videos weren't proving we can't cross the van allen belts. The videos were proving people from NASA say we can't. There's a difference. See if you can see it. Spendy sure couldn't.

No, the "videos do not prove" any such thing.  Facts prove things.

So do you think the pope visited the US and talked to the UN and congress recently? If you weren't there, how can you believe the TV? They only have video proof for you.

First of all the links that you have quoted do, as I said, cut and snip Kelly Smith's talk.  They superimpose imagery and words on top of his snipped sections.  To make it simple, they lie about what he said.  That's what you seem to be somehow in favor of.  No, Kelly Smith didn't say we can't cross the van allen belts.  No, your videos don't prove people from NASA say we can't cross them.  No, you don't have a point.

Here is the unabridged video of Smith.

http://www.space.com/27560-orion-capsule-test-flight-video.html

Here are some parts of his talk -

can harm the guidance computer...pass through twice...once up and once back...shielding will be put to the test...

...we must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space...

Once it breaks away from Earth, the Orion capsule will pass through the Van Allen Belts, huge swaths of radiation that could wreak havoc on a spacecraft's electronic equipment. The data Orion collects when passing through the belts will help engineers design shielding that can safeguard the craft during future human missions, Smith said.

This is a talk about an operational systems test of the capsule that involves sending it through the belts before sending the capsule up with people in it.  

Would you like to get real please?

If you don't, I suggest you simply email Kelly and ask him your questions.  This is not complicated.

He says, "...we must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space...". If they don't know how to solve these problems to get people through that area of space now (in 2015), then how did they do it in 1969?

No part of your statement is true.  No more than your links accurately reflected what "NASA says," or "What a NASA engineer said."

See, the misdirection of Spendy has you thinking this. The videos weren't proving we can't cross the van allen belts. The videos were proving people from NASA say we can't. There's a difference. See if you can see it. Spendy sure couldn't.


Testing a spacecraft is standard practice.  It was done with Apollo, and it is being done with Orion.  It's as if you intentionally mistake things.  

Well, you got caught.

The concern is clearly stated as to the electronics being a matter of concern.  If your car's computer and sensors quit, your car would quit.  Was that true in 1969?  nope, because none of today's miniaturized electronics existed.  Regardless, systems testing is good practice.

Again, I invite you to simply ask your question to Kelly Smith, if you actually believe he said things - or implied things - that he didn't.

Right, deflecting from what I was actually talking about... strawman fallacies. I agree testing a spacecraft is always a standard practice, but of course that has nothing to do with what I was originally talking about.

If they knew how to get through the radiation in 1969, then they should know how to get through the radiation now.

But thanks for showing he said what I said he said.

"Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, on-board computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back. But Orion has protection, shielding will be put to the test...Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for us to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space..."

What you're saying is that because there is a different technology (miniaturized electronics) on Orion, it may malfunction when it goes through the Van Allen Belts, which is why they're testing it without humans first. What he should have said, "We must solve these challenges before we can send people in Orion through these areas of space". Because everyone knows we've already sent people through these areas of space.

So how did they protect the previous 1969 Apollo mission's guidance systems, on-board computers, or other electronics? Because they were bigger back then, they were more protected? Why didn't they test the radiation levels back then to figure out how to get their electronics through the Van Allen Belt back in '69?

Oh you want me to ask them. I don't care. My point was he said they need to study up, get the radiation information, so they can send Orion up through the Van Allen Belts, so they can then actually get humans up there. Which is what he said.

Your goalpost shifting is quite obvious.

Not only is spacecraft testing standard practice, so is aircraft and auto.  Van Allen belts were extensively studied before Apollo.  Instead of asking misleading questions based on lying youtube videos, why not just read a bit about it?

Yes, today's electronics is far more sensitive to radiation than that of 1969.  That is why solar storms and Carrington events are problematic today.

When Apollo flew, the program directors and the astronauts knew the exact risk factors from Van Allen, solar radiation, and solar storms.  Everybody knew that if a bad storm hit, the men in the capsules were dead.  Everyone knew there was no risk from the Van Allen belts they traversed.

Just as an example, here is Wikipedia on the van allen belts.

Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as the total electric charge in these circuits is now small enough so as to be comparable with the charge of incoming ions. ....

The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts...

The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them.....

... total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[30]

[MakingMoneyHoney]

See, the misdirection of Spendy has you thinking this. The videos weren't proving we can't cross the van allen belts. The videos were proving people from NASA say we can't. There's a difference. See if you can see it. Spendy sure couldn't.

No, the "videos do not prove" any such thing.  Facts prove things.

So do you think the pope visited the US and talked to the UN and congress recently? If you weren't there, how can you believe the TV? They only have video proof for you.

First of all the links that you have quoted do, as I said, cut and snip Kelly Smith's talk.  They superimpose imagery and words on top of his snipped sections.  To make it simple, they lie about what he said.  That's what you seem to be somehow in favor of.  No, Kelly Smith didn't say we can't cross the van allen belts.  No, your videos don't prove people from NASA say we can't cross them.  No, you don't have a point.

Here is the unabridged video of Smith.

http://www.space.com/27560-orion-capsule-test-flight-video.html

Here are some parts of his talk -

can harm the guidance computer...pass through twice...once up and once back...shielding will be put to the test...

...we must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space...

Once it breaks away from Earth, the Orion capsule will pass through the Van Allen Belts, huge swaths of radiation that could wreak havoc on a spacecraft's electronic equipment. The data Orion collects when passing through the belts will help engineers design shielding that can safeguard the craft during future human missions, Smith said.

This is a talk about an operational systems test of the capsule that involves sending it through the belts before sending the capsule up with people in it.  

Would you like to get real please?

If you don't, I suggest you simply email Kelly and ask him your questions.  This is not complicated.

He says, "...we must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space...". If they don't know how to solve these problems to get people through that area of space now (in 2015), then how did they do it in 1969?

No part of your statement is true.  No more than your links accurately reflected what "NASA says," or "What a NASA engineer said."

See, the misdirection of Spendy has you thinking this. The videos weren't proving we can't cross the van allen belts. The videos were proving people from NASA say we can't. There's a difference. See if you can see it. Spendy sure couldn't.


Testing a spacecraft is standard practice.  It was done with Apollo, and it is being done with Orion.  It's as if you intentionally mistake things.  

Well, you got caught.

The concern is clearly stated as to the electronics being a matter of concern.  If your car's computer and sensors quit, your car would quit.  Was that true in 1969?  nope, because none of today's miniaturized electronics existed.  Regardless, systems testing is good practice.

Again, I invite you to simply ask your question to Kelly Smith, if you actually believe he said things - or implied things - that he didn't.

Right, deflecting from what I was actually talking about... strawman fallacies. I agree testing a spacecraft is always a standard practice, but of course that has nothing to do with what I was originally talking about.

If they knew how to get through the radiation in 1969, then they should know how to get through the radiation now.

But thanks for showing he said what I said he said.

"Radiation like this can harm the guidance systems, on-board computers, or other electronics on Orion. Naturally we have to pass through this danger zone twice, once up and once back. But Orion has protection, shielding will be put to the test...Sensors aboard will record radiation levels for us to study. We must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space..."

What you're saying is that because there is a different technology (miniaturized electronics) on Orion, it may malfunction when it goes through the Van Allen Belts, which is why they're testing it without humans first. What he should have said, "We must solve these challenges before we can send people in Orion through these areas of space". Because everyone knows we've already sent people through these areas of space.

So how did they protect the previous 1969 Apollo mission's guidance systems, on-board computers, or other electronics? Because they were bigger back then, they were more protected? Why didn't they test the radiation levels back then to figure out how to get their electronics through the Van Allen Belt back in '69?

Oh you want me to ask them. I don't care. My point was he said they need to study up, get the radiation information, so they can send Orion up through the Van Allen Belts, so they can then actually get humans up there. Which is what he said.

Your goalpost shifting is quite obvious.

Not only is spacecraft testing standard practice, so is aircraft and auto.  Van Allen belts were extensively studied before Apollo.  Instead of asking misleading questions based on lying youtube videos, why not just read a bit about it?

Yes, today's electronics is far more sensitive to radiation than that of 1969.  That is why solar storms and Carrington events are problematic today.

When Apollo flew, the program directors and the astronauts knew the exact risk factors from Van Allen, solar radiation, and solar storms.  Everybody knew that if a bad storm hit, the men in the capsules were dead.  Everyone knew there was no risk from the Van Allen belts they traversed.

Just as an example, here is Wikipedia on the van allen belts.

Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as the total electric charge in these circuits is now small enough so as to be comparable with the charge of incoming ions. ....

The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts...

The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them.....

... total radiation received by the astronauts varied from mission to mission but was measured to be between 0.16 and 1.14 rads (1.6 and 11.4 mGy), much less than the standard of 5 rem (50 mSv) per year set by the United States Atomic Energy Commission for people who work with radioactivity.[30]

You act as if I based my info from the youtube personalities, instead of straight from the mouth of the NASA employee. Couldn't be further from the truth as the quotes you wrote up said what I said he said. The video of him talking was the same in both videos. I couldn't care less about what you're writing, because I was never arguing about whether or not we got through the belts, purely pointing out the NASA employee says they need to do more work to get humans through them.

[BADecker]

See, the misdirection of Spendy has you thinking this. The videos weren't proving we can't cross the van allen belts. The videos were proving people from NASA say we can't. There's a difference. See if you can see it. Spendy sure couldn't.

No, the "videos do not prove" any such thing.  Facts prove things.

So do you think the pope visited the US and talked to the UN and congress recently? If you weren't there, how can you believe the TV? They only have video proof for you.

First of all the links that you have quoted do, as I said, cut and snip Kelly Smith's talk.  They superimpose imagery and words on top of his snipped sections.  To make it simple, they lie about what he said.  That's what you seem to be somehow in favor of.  No, Kelly Smith didn't say we can't cross the van allen belts.  No, your videos don't prove people from NASA say we can't cross them.  No, you don't have a point.

Here is the unabridged video of Smith.

http://www.space.com/27560-orion-capsule-test-flight-video.html

Here are some parts of his talk -

can harm the guidance computer...pass through twice...once up and once back...shielding will be put to the test...

...we must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space...

Once it breaks away from Earth, the Orion capsule will pass through the Van Allen Belts, huge swaths of radiation that could wreak havoc on a spacecraft's electronic equipment. The data Orion collects when passing through the belts will help engineers design shielding that can safeguard the craft during future human missions, Smith said.

This is a talk about an operational systems test of the capsule that involves sending it through the belts before sending the capsule up with people in it.  

Would you like to get real please?

If you don't, I suggest you simply email Kelly and ask him your questions.  This is not complicated.

Well, Spendy, I watched your video at http://www.space.com/27560-orion-capsule-test-flight-video.html. And after seeing this, all I have to say is, BULLSHIT.

Besides MakingMoneyHoney being right about Smith saying, "...we must solve these challenges before we send people through these areas of space...," the whole thing is total BS.

The Smith quote, above, says what it says. The problems weren't solved back with Apollo, or else we lost it. Losing it is stupid thinking. Therefore we never had it.

This whole NASA video is stupid. The Space Shuttle could have taken something like Orion up there, and brought Orion back if NASA was going to do something like send guys to the moon on Orion.

Furthermore, the Space Shuttle, itself, would have been a much more viable method for a moon or Mars shot, simply because of its ability to land on a runway. We did lots of runway landing missions with the Space Shuttle.

In addition, the gigantic cargo bay of the Shuttle would have been ideal to take equipment out and beyond, at the same time it housed the astronauts in much better living conditions.

This whole NASA thing is a big cover-up. What are they covering up? Who knows? But Orion is stupid when comparing it to the Space Shuttle.

What does this mean? It means that NASA is at least deceitful. And this means that NASA is also lying right out in the open about some if not many things.

As MakingMoneyHoney said, "Wake up."



EDIT: The Youtube link for this video is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyZqSWWKmHQ.

[Spendulus]

...

..The video of him talking was the same in both videos. I couldn't care less about what you're writing, because I was never arguing about whether or not we got through the belts, purely pointing out the NASA employee says they need to do more work to get humans through them.

Here is your post #55, referencing "people going through Van Allen Belts" -

Can you tell me why the people at NASA don't think they have yet?

Now you say you were never arguing about whether or not we moved people through the belts.

Moving goalposts.  Probably want to delete your prior posts, before claiming something different.

Your link (not you) was a twisted, sick misframing and misrepresentation of Smith's actual talk.  It took things out of context to make a point that is obviously wrong to anyone with a glimmer of understanding of the science.  You bought into it or whatever, and I called you on it. 

This is not complicated.  A one minute google search would have shown you the propagandist doing the video was a outright liar.  There's nothing wrong with not understanding why bigger electronic parts are affected less by radiation than miniaturized parts.  But these are not matters of opinion, they are well understood.

[MakingMoneyHoney]

...

..The video of him talking was the same in both videos. I couldn't care less about what you're writing, because I was never arguing about whether or not we got through the belts, purely pointing out the NASA employee says they need to do more work to get humans through them.

Here is your post #55, referencing "people going through Van Allen Belts" -

Can you tell me why the people at NASA don't think they have yet?

Now you say you were never arguing about whether or not we moved people through the belts.

Moving goalposts.  Probably want to delete your prior posts, before claiming something different.

See? I knew you didn't get it. I'm sorry, but I wasn't moving goal posts, you simply were making them up (strawman). My post was about "why the people at NASA don't think they have yet", yet you claim I'm discussing whether or not we have. I am discussing people from NASA (who are talking about whether or not we have).

Your link (not you) was a twisted, sick misframing and misrepresentation of Smith's actual talk.  It took things out of context to make a point that is obviously wrong to anyone with a glimmer of understanding of the science.  You bought into it or whatever, and I called you on it.  

This is not complicated.  A one minute google search would have shown you the propagandist doing the video was a outright liar.  There's nothing wrong with not understanding why bigger electronic parts are affected less by radiation than miniaturized parts.  But these are not matters of opinion, they are well understood.

You called me on stuff that doesn't matter. I was simply pointing out what the person from NASA said, which you agreed with. It's not my fault you don't know how to look at a video and ignore certain people, and focus on others without getting sidetracked.