PDA

View Full Version : We can't reach the Moon, but Mars is OK!



Jovianboy
2002-Jun-05, 07:27 AM
Check out this hilarious "press release", co-authored by Dave Cosnette:

http://www.angelfire.com/wa/UFORC/features/MARS/Press.html

It makes one wonder: If NASA was unable to get past those hideous, demonic Van Allen radiation belts to reach the Moon, how does Dave think they'll send a manned ship to Mars to find his imaginary alien civilization? What a looney.

Stories of Martians coming to Earth? Leave it alone Dave - HG Wells did it better in 1897. Now he's surely turning in his grave.

Kaptain K
2002-Jun-05, 11:19 AM
Ya gotta love 'em:

We cannot ignore the fact that UFO reports increase when Mars is at its closest orbit to Earth.
Yup! That's an ironclad correlation they've got there./phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif

kucharek
2002-Jun-05, 12:04 PM
On 2002-06-05 07:19, Kaptain K wrote:
Ya gotta love 'em:

We cannot ignore the fact that UFO reports increase when Mars is at its closest orbit to Earth.
Yup! That's an ironclad correlation they've got there./phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif


If you'd have a technology that could make an advantage of the fact that Mars and Earth are closest, you wouldn't need to make use of the fact that Mars and Earth are closest.
If you've so much energy available that you can go in a straight line from Mars to Earth, you wouldn't mind to hose out more fuel when they are not closest.
I guess, one could call the straight line at opposition a "maximum energy transfer trajectory".
Okay, maybe if you want to do the straight line at conjunction, you'd even need more energy.
Especially for your air condition when you make the close Sun fly-by...

Harald

2002-Jun-05, 12:19 PM
<a name="20020605.4"> page 20020605.4 aka Lunar Data
MY baINdex (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=183&forum=1#LOCKTHRD)
well? not being a Nasa or even a Space Station fan
1: it may come as no surprise
2: that i only express
3: "DISCONTENT"
4: with things as thy are
5: My Big complaint of course
6: are the lunar rovers
7: Why oh WHY.. if the got `em there
8: in the first place .. di the NOT make
9: "THOSE" remote controlable
BOO.. # JD2452431 & 13 LAMAT 2 ZOTZ too.
ok lemme lok about myself
http://almagest.as.utexas.edu/~rlr/mlrs.html
its possible to find some LASER moon range
data from there: but thats "IT" as far as i know? Boo.. {2many2#}

jrkeller
2002-Jun-05, 01:18 PM
From what I recall, UFO sightings increase when Venus is at its brightest and hence close to Earth. I'm serious about this. What going on is that people mistake Venus for a UFO.

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Jun-05, 01:42 PM
On 2002-06-05 09:18, jrkeller wrote:
From what I recall, UFO sightings increase when Venus is at its brightest and hence close to Earth. I'm serious about this. What going on is that people mistake Venus for a UFO.


You may be thinking of times when Venus is most visible--when it is farther from the Sun from our point of view--which means that it is not really at its closest to Earth.

Venus is not at its brightest when it is closest to Earth. There is a trade off between it being larger, and seeing the "back" (non-sunlit) side. And, when it is closer to Earth, it is essentially invisible naked-eye, since it is also so close to the apparent position of the Sun.

At other times, its magnitude is in the range -4 to -4.6, so whether it is on the near side of the Sun or the far side, it appears about the same. When it is farther away, more of it is lit.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-05, 02:07 PM
I love the name-dropping, though. Like Arthur C. Clarke would have anything to do with these clowns.
/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

Martian Jim
2002-Jun-05, 06:20 PM
hehe, mistaking me for venus. i love my ufo, its great when i fire the laserbeam at people.

Kaptain K
2002-Jun-05, 07:20 PM
Posted: 2002-06-05 08:04 by kucharek

If you'd have a technology that could make an advantage of the fact that Mars and Earth are closest, you wouldn't need to make use of the fact that Mars and Earth are closest.
You are, of course, quite correct. Neither the beginning nor the end point of a minimum energy transfer orbit occurs at the time of minimum seperation. Thanks for expanding my (over simplified) statement.

_________________
When all is said and done - sit down and shut up!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-06-05 15:21 ]</font>

JayUtah
2002-Jun-05, 07:37 PM
The minimum-energy transfer is the Hohmann transfer, which uses diametrically opposed start and end points. A transfer at minimum separation would require dramatically more delta-v capacity.

sts60
2002-Jun-05, 10:58 PM
Just took a look and noticed the big press release is over a year old. I must have missed the global, worldwide brouhaha over the release of this revolutionary information.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-06, 08:06 PM
Actually I did not write any of that at all. Chris Montgomery did.
His organisation UFORCE however,for which I am the UK Director is now heavily involved with the SciFi Channel and we are just cementing an agreement where the international directors of our organisation will be sent and will investigate UFO cases for the channel. We will also be hosts in their forums on UFOs and related subjects.

Andrew
2002-Jun-06, 09:27 PM
Oh, the Science Fiction channel.

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-06, 09:28 PM
On 2002-06-06 17:27, Andrew wrote:
Oh, the Science Fiction channel.

Yeah, the home of John Edwards.

Firefox
2002-Jun-06, 09:40 PM
Hey, don't forget Sightings. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif


Adam

DaveC
2002-Jun-06, 10:11 PM
On 2002-06-05 08:19, HUb' wrote:
<a name="20020605.4"> page 20020605.4 aka Lunar Data
MY baINdex (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=183&forum=1#LOCKTHRD)
well? not being a Nasa or even a Space Station fan
1: it may come as no surprise
2: that i only express
3: "DISCONTENT"
4: with things as thy are
5: My Big complaint of course
6: are the lunar rovers
7: Why oh WHY.. if the got `em there
8: in the first place .. di the NOT make
9: "THOSE" remote controlable
BOO.. # JD2452431 & 13 LAMAT 2 ZOTZ too.
ok lemme lok about myself
http://almagest.as.utexas.edu/~rlr/mlrs.html
its possible to find some LASER moon range
data from there: but thats "IT" as far as i know? Boo.. {2many2#}


They probably could have made them remotely controllable, but they didn't need to. They had humans there to drive them. I doubt there was much consideration given to having the rovers continue to rove after the astronauts left. Better to leave 'em parked beside the landing sites so they'll be there for the HBs to see when someone goes back.
Since they allegedly don't leave tracks, it might be hard to find them if they were wandering all over by remote control. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Peter B
2002-Jun-06, 11:48 PM
They probably could have made them remotely controllable, but they didn't need to. They had humans there to drive them. I doubt there was much consideration given to having the rovers continue to rove after the astronauts left. Better to leave 'em parked beside the landing sites so they'll be there for the HBs to see when someone goes back.
Since they allegedly don't leave tracks, it might be hard to find them if they were wandering all over by remote control. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Well, according to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, the rovers would've been made remotely controllable if the money had been there. And apparently it wouldn't have cost much. Although the astronauts were there to drive the rovers around for three days, they used little of the rovers' battery power.

Had a remote control ability been available, the rovers could've been driven to sites the astronauts didn't visit. No sampling, of course, but some useful video.

Jovianboy
2002-Jun-07, 03:07 AM
On 2002-06-06 16:06, cosmicdave wrote:
Actually I did not write any of that at all. Chris Montgomery did.


But your name was on it, alongside Montgomery's. On a press release or any other piece of writing, that at least indicates a clear endorsement of content, if not collaboration in the writing. You cannot categorically deny responsibility for the views and beliefs expressed in that document (that is, of course, using the word "document" in its broadest possible sense - it was more like literary diarrhoea).

JB

JayUtah
2002-Jun-07, 04:09 AM
Oh, the Science Fiction channel.


There are only two things that network is good for: original Star Trek reruns (which generally have more believable science content than anything C. Dave has said), and MST3K, which is infinitely more amusing.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-07, 04:15 AM
Had a remote control ability been available, the rovers could've been driven to sites the astronauts didn't visit.

They would have just gotten pictures of the stagehands taking down the set. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

pvtpylot
2002-Jun-07, 04:18 AM
On 2002-06-07 00:09, JayUtah wrote:
MST3K, which is infinitely more amusing.


Yeah, but I miss Joel and The Mads /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif

JayUtah
2002-Jun-07, 04:27 AM
But your name was on it, alongside Montgomery's.

If I had come up with an idea on my own, and if I had put all the work into writing and polishing and publishing it, someone else would get his name on the byline next to mine only over my dead body. And even then it would be iffy.

If C. Dave does not wish his name associated with ideas he doesn't agree with, he should not consent to having his name attached as an author to the documents that embody those ideas. It seems yet another case of Mr. Cosnette wanting the blessings of celebrity without any of the attendant responsibility.

steinhenge
2002-Jun-07, 07:16 AM
There are only two things that network is good for

What, have they stopped showing the B5 re-runs?!

johnwitts
2002-Jun-07, 12:42 PM
MST3K? What's this?

David Hall
2002-Jun-07, 01:44 PM
On 2002-06-07 08:42, johnwitts wrote:
MST3K? What's this?


Mystery Science Theater 3000! One of the best and most original series to come along in ages.

Basically, they had a cheezy setup where the main character and his robot pals were trapped aboard a satellite and forced to watch bad movies. The tv audience then gets to hear all their sarcastic remarks as they watch it (Think Rocky Horror show if you know what that means). Between segments they also generally had other skits, such as aliens attacking or something. But always goofy.

They even had an MST3K movie. Yes, a theatrical release with a movie inside a movie. It was great.

http://www.scifi.com/mst3000/



In the not-too-distant future--
Next Sunday A.D.--
There was a guy named Joel,
Not too different from you or me.
He worked at Gizmonic Institute,
Just another face in a red jumpsuit.
He did a good job cleaning up the place,
But his bosses didn't like him So they shot him into space.
We'll send him cheesy movies,
The worst we can find (la-la-la).
He'll have to sit and watch them all,
And we'll monitor his mind (la-la-la).
Now keep in mind Joel can't control
Where the movies begin or end (la-la-la)
Because he used those special parts
To make his robot friends.
Robot Roll Call: (Let's go!)
Cambot! (Pan left!)
Gypsy! (Hi, girl!)
Tom Servo! (What a cool guy!)
Croooow! (What a wisecracker!)
If you're wondering how he eats and breathes
And other science facts (la la la),
Then repeat to yourself, "It's just a show, I should really just relax
For Mystery Science Theater 3000!"

Conrad
2002-Jun-07, 03:31 PM
You won't have seen MST3K if you haven't had access to it via satellite. I have been lucky enough to have seen many episodes that a friend had the good taste to tape when it was being shown. Utterly hilarious! I think my favourite is the "Space Mutiny" one, which causes gagging with laughter when viewed. That, or "Invasion of the Neptune Men" <drifts off into daydreaming about cheesy BW sci-fi films>
Far better than either Big Brother or the World Cup!

David Hall
2002-Jun-07, 03:39 PM
Oh god! Space Mutiny. That's gotta be my favorite too! They actually used old Battlestar Galactica footage in this super-low-budget Canadian drek. And I mean footage of the Galactica itself, claiming it was a completely different ship. Utterly hilarious!

Unfortunately, I lent my copy of it to a friend, and he moved away, never to give it back. I'm kicking myself now.

johnwitts
2002-Jun-07, 08:57 PM
So, basically, I should be really upset not to have satellite?

Sean
2002-Jun-07, 10:33 PM
MST3K plays on the SciFi network Saturday Mornings. At least in Washington

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-08, 02:22 PM
Quote: 'But your name was on it, alongside Montgomery's. On a press release or any other piece of writing, that at least indicates a clear endorsement of content, if not collaboration in the writing. You cannot categorically deny responsibility for the views and beliefs expressed in that document'

Qoute: 'If C. Dave does not wish his name associated with ideas he doesn't agree with, he should not consent to having his name attached '

So this would be the same case with HJP Arnold who's remarks according to you could have been completely taken out of context in 'DarkMoon'?. Why doesn't he ask Percy and Bennett to withdraw the video then.

Actually, seeming that you are all speculating again, I'll put you right. Mr. Montgomery sent me the photos mentioned and said that he intended to release them with a press release. I commented at the time that I thought they were interesting but that was it. The next thing I know is that this article appears. Its no big deal really, only people like the ones on here would have a problem with it. I guess that he put my name at the bottom because he had sought my thoughts on it.

Simple really.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-08, 02:27 PM
I guess that he put my name at the bottom because he had sought my thoughts on it.

Right. He gives you co-author credit because he asked your opinion on it? Spin us another one, I don't buy it.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-11, 07:37 PM
Then write to him and ask him...

JayUtah
2002-Jun-11, 10:32 PM
I'm asking the person whose name appears as the co-author of an article. If you do not wish to be associated with the ideas that appear in that article, the I suggest you contact the other author and ask that your name be removed.

If your name appears as the author of a work, you are responsible for the content of that article, whether you wish to be or not. That is the nature of authorship.