mythbusters

laserlover said:

[quote author=FrothyChimp link=1219900282/0#2 date=1219905554]Jamie broke the cardinal rule of lasers: never point them at someone. He lased Adam right in the forehead at very close range with a 10mW 532nm pointer. I will have speaks with him next time I see him. He'll probably tell me where to stick it, lol.

Click to expand...

i took note of that as well and i was like "wow he just shined that by his eye, lol"

i can't believe you have met Jamie! thats tight[/quote]

WRONG.

it was jamie who met frothy.

WE HAVE BEEN TO THE MOON WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT!!!!

Click to expand...

ranting and shouting in CAPS wont make me believe your statement. rather it will make me think anything you write in CAPS will be wrong.

ranting and shouting in CAPS wont make me believe your statement. rather it will make me think anything you write in CAPS will be wrong.

Click to expand...

who said i care what you think?

FrothyChimp said:

Jamie broke the cardinal rule of lasers: never point them at someone. He lased Adam right in the forehead at very close range with a 10mW 532nm pointer. I will have speaks with him next time I see him. He'll probably tell me where to stick it, lol.

Click to expand...

It could have been a different laser,although I would not want any sort of laser pointed at my forehead.

--hydro

I watch that show more then I care to mention. Now about the H2 hose
sometimes you get caught up in the moment and you get exited then do something stupid. I also think that tank had nothing but hydrogen in it so it probably would not explode, but when hydrogen burns it does it VERY fast and basically explodes if the air/fuel mixture is right.

Now, the moon landing has physical evidence so it can't really be debated but I know there is going to be somebody here who thinks I'm wrong and that just fine
with me.

just my 0.02 dollars

--hydro15

Question ----

With all our new science, Why don't we have ONE piece of equipment to get to the moon and back ? It's been over 30 years FGS. The moon is now abandoned real estate. And we're planning a Mars trip ????

Scammmmmmmm.

Mike

Humanity has given up. It was a space race and once we won there was no reason for any of the other countries to try anymore. They say it's not practical and they want to wait till the technology gets better so we can get to mars/the moon for cheaper, But there is one and only one thing that will make us go back once more and its right HERE---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9NO84uvrg8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eS8Uep0z4o&feature=related

--hydro15

Right now (actually very soon) they going to be doing missions to determine the presence of water on the moon in hopes to create a future base of operations on the Moon for the Mars trip. So there ARE plans to go back to the moon, so long it isn't as worthless as it is currently known to be ;D

rkcstr said:

Right now (actually very soon) they going to be doing missions to determine the presence of water on the moon in hopes to create a future base of operations on the Moon for the Mars trip. So there ARE plans to go back to the moon, so long it isn't as worthless as it is currently known to be ;D

Click to expand...

Thats true. I just would like to see us go back to the moon more right now.

--hydro15

Using the moon as a base for continuing on to Mars, from a physics/energy/cost standpoint, isn't a great idea.  Practice, science, testing, sure, it's great to go there.  But a pit stop there on the way to Mars, not so much.

Because leaving the surface of the moon, once there, takes more energy.  You've already gotten your ship at escape velocity from earth, so now you're going to expend energy slowing it down to land on the moon, then expend more energy getting escape velocity from the moon and getting back up to a reasonable speed to get to Mars in any decent length of time.  That extra energy being spent to decelerate to the moon and accelerate away from it again is energy you don't need to use, when that energy is just more mass that you're going to have to lift off of the earth in the first place.  You don't need to do it, there's really not a good reason to stop on the moon on the way to Mars.  They're both worthy destinations in their own rights, but stopping on the way out to Mars is a waste of time and money.  When we're talking many thousands of dollars per pound for everything we put on the ship going to Mars, all that fuel that isn't needed really adds up.  You could replace it with more oxygen, food, and water, and spend more time on Mars rather than wasting space on the ship on the fuel you'll need to stop on the moon.



As far as the H[sub]2[/sub] tank, it probably won't explode even if the flame ran back into the hose, it may very well just extinguish itself. But a tank like that falling over and knocking the regulator off can suddenly become a missile, and a flammable missile at that. It may be that nothing bad would happen, but certainly nothing good could happen.

pullbangdead said:

Using the moon as a base for continuing on to Mars, from a physics/energy/cost standpoint, isn't a great idea. Practice, science, testing, sure, it's great to go there. But a pit stop there on the way to Mars, not so much.

Because leaving the surface of the moon, once there, takes more energy. You've already gotten your ship at escape velocity from earth, so now you're going to expend energy slowing it down to land on the moon, then expend more energy getting escape velocity from the moon and getting back up to a reasonable speed to get to Mars in any decent length of time. That extra energy being spent to decelerate to the moon and accelerate away from it again is energy you don't need to use, when that energy is just more mass that you're going to have to lift off of the earth in the first place. You don't need to do it, there's really not a good reason to stop on the moon on the way to Mars. They're both worthy destinations in their own rights, but stopping on the way out to Mars is a waste of time and money. When we're talking many thousands of dollars per pound for everything we put on the ship going to Mars, all that fuel that isn't needed really adds up. You could replace it with more oxygen, food, and water, and spend more time on Mars rather than wasting space on the ship on the fuel you'll need to stop on the moon.



As far as the H[sub]2[/sub] tank, it probably won't explode even if the flame ran back into the hose, it may very well just extinguish itself. But a tank like that falling over and knocking the regulator off can suddenly become a missile, and a flammable missile at that. It may be that nothing bad would happen, but certainly nothing good could happen.

Click to expand...

Forget thousands of dollars. Every time we go into space we pay three times what the payload
would be worth if it was gold. Also,you have to remember that the more fuel we need in space the more fuel we need to get it there in the first place and once your in space you still have to push the fuel which means you need more and well you know.....

So if they could make a rocket engine that runs on helium 3 the ship would be several times lighter and thus several times cheaper.

--hydro15

laserlover said:

ranting and shouting in CAPS wont make me believe your statement. rather it will make me think anything you write in CAPS will be wrong.

Click to expand...

who said i care what you think?

Click to expand...

the fact that you quoted me and started a discussion

Niko said:

[quote author=laserlover link=1219900282/0#17 date=1220131481]

ranting and shouting in CAPS wont make me believe your statement. rather it will make me think anything you write in CAPS will be wrong.

Click to expand...

who said i care what you think?

Click to expand...

the fact that you quoted me and started a discussion [/quote]

haha, pwnt

I just saw it a few days ago, I would of replied sooner but I was out of town... I was hoping that they would like, burn paper with it. ;D