well god didn't make us to go on mars so I think we shouldn't really do it
There is no god.
there are monstrous storms, worse than the hurricanes of our earth. therefore difficult to carry out construction sites.
apart from living near the poles, it can be risky in terms of water supply.
it is a desolate, devastated world unfit for human life. this kind of utopia can quickly become a disaster for a human colony
apart from living near the poles, it can be risky in terms of water supply.
it is a desolate, devastated world unfit for human life. this kind of utopia can quickly become a disaster for a human colony
Perhaps Bigfoot has been to the moon? Riding atop Loch Nessy? Setting off from the grassy knoll? And controlled from Building 7?
I'm trying to find something EVERYBODY will believe.
In the meantime, I think back to watching them step out onto the surface, on live TV (off by about 2 seconds, I suppose, given the pokey speed of light).
It had to be real, because Armstrong seemed (to me at least) to slightly screw up the special sentence said as he stepped down. I think he probably meant to say "That's one small step for A man, and one giant leap for Mankind."
But as I recall, he left out the to-be-expected "A" and said "...small step for Man, and a giant leap for Mankind." Which is sort of redundant.
If the incident were scripted and staged, such a small glitch would have been unlikely. They could have done the scene over, if it were being faked.
No, we (Mankind) were there. As @Thalassokrator convincingly indicated.
The interesting question is: was it really for the first time?
I'm trying to find something EVERYBODY will believe.
In the meantime, I think back to watching them step out onto the surface, on live TV (off by about 2 seconds, I suppose, given the pokey speed of light).
It had to be real, because Armstrong seemed (to me at least) to slightly screw up the special sentence said as he stepped down. I think he probably meant to say "That's one small step for A man, and one giant leap for Mankind."
But as I recall, he left out the to-be-expected "A" and said "...small step for Man, and a giant leap for Mankind." Which is sort of redundant.
If the incident were scripted and staged, such a small glitch would have been unlikely. They could have done the scene over, if it were being faked.
No, we (Mankind) were there. As @Thalassokrator convincingly indicated.
The interesting question is: was it really for the first time?
Armstrong said...One giant step for Manrique....after Cesar Manrique, who built the moon landing site on Lanzarote.
The wind on Mars, even if blowing at greater velocity, would not remind me Wyoming, since the air on Mars is much less dense (packs less mass per unit volume).
Given that every cubic meter of the Martian atmosphere has about 2 percent of the mass of one cubic meter of Earth's atmosphere at equivalent altitude, I do not believe that a Martian "storm" would really pack much of a punch.
The highest wind velocity on Mars, i believe, has so far been recorded to be about 60 miles per hour -- and it would push only 2 percent of the mass of air we are used to; so it would hardly knock us over.
Kinetic energy rises with the square of velocity. So if the wind were 7 times faster on Mars (420 mph), we still would be only approaching the impact of a 60-mile-per-hour gale on Earth, given the dinky density of the Martian atmosphere.
Of course, if any wind of such extreme velocity (not that I think it exists) managed to pick up some BB-sized dust, those BBs WOULD feel a bit like a shot gun blast.
So, okay, I won't be booking a room on Mars any time soon, just to be on the safe side (since who knows how fast the wind COULD get).
Given that every cubic meter of the Martian atmosphere has about 2 percent of the mass of one cubic meter of Earth's atmosphere at equivalent altitude, I do not believe that a Martian "storm" would really pack much of a punch.
The highest wind velocity on Mars, i believe, has so far been recorded to be about 60 miles per hour -- and it would push only 2 percent of the mass of air we are used to; so it would hardly knock us over.
Kinetic energy rises with the square of velocity. So if the wind were 7 times faster on Mars (420 mph), we still would be only approaching the impact of a 60-mile-per-hour gale on Earth, given the dinky density of the Martian atmosphere.
Of course, if any wind of such extreme velocity (not that I think it exists) managed to pick up some BB-sized dust, those BBs WOULD feel a bit like a shot gun blast.
So, okay, I won't be booking a room on Mars any time soon, just to be on the safe side (since who knows how fast the wind COULD get).
Well, we had a lot of luck on Venus
We always had a ball on Mars
We're meeting all the groovy people
We've rocked the Milky Way so far
We danced around with Borealis
We're space truckin' round the the stars...
Oh yeah....!
We always had a ball on Mars
We're meeting all the groovy people
We've rocked the Milky Way so far
We danced around with Borealis
We're space truckin' round the the stars...
Oh yeah....!
wait a minute there were people living on mars?
P.S. I'm not good at science
P.S. I'm not good at science
@HiramHolliday said in #31:
> #29. Methinks thee protest too much sirrah.
And the sire doth misquote Shakespeare too much, methinks.
You seem to be unwilling to even entertain the idea that the landings might have been real, uninterested in exploring the lines of evidence I have presented and unable to address them cogently. Such ignoration some might consider closed-minded.
You can imply that my "protest" against your denial exposes my "hiding the truth" all you want. That doesn't change the fact that I'm actually interested in what is, not what I would like there to be. While all you seem to care about is making snarky remarks and dishing out thinly veiled accusations of dishonesty. How predictable.
> #29. Methinks thee protest too much sirrah.
And the sire doth misquote Shakespeare too much, methinks.
You seem to be unwilling to even entertain the idea that the landings might have been real, uninterested in exploring the lines of evidence I have presented and unable to address them cogently. Such ignoration some might consider closed-minded.
You can imply that my "protest" against your denial exposes my "hiding the truth" all you want. That doesn't change the fact that I'm actually interested in what is, not what I would like there to be. While all you seem to care about is making snarky remarks and dishing out thinly veiled accusations of dishonesty. How predictable.
@Thalassokrator said in #49:
> And the sire doth misquote Shakespeare too much, methinks.
>
> You seem to be unwilling to even entertain the idea that the landings might have been real, uninterested in exploring the lines of evidence I have presented and unable to address them cogently. Such ignoration some might consider closed-minded.
>
> You can imply that my "protest" against your denial exposes my "hiding the truth" all you want. That doesn't change the fact that I'm actually interested in what is, not what I would like there to be. While all you seem to care about is making snarky remarks and dishing out thinly veiled accusations of dishonesty. How predictable.
Truthfully, i predict and am pretty sure he'll just deny your protest of his denial.
> And the sire doth misquote Shakespeare too much, methinks.
>
> You seem to be unwilling to even entertain the idea that the landings might have been real, uninterested in exploring the lines of evidence I have presented and unable to address them cogently. Such ignoration some might consider closed-minded.
>
> You can imply that my "protest" against your denial exposes my "hiding the truth" all you want. That doesn't change the fact that I'm actually interested in what is, not what I would like there to be. While all you seem to care about is making snarky remarks and dishing out thinly veiled accusations of dishonesty. How predictable.
Truthfully, i predict and am pretty sure he'll just deny your protest of his denial.