NASA says humans could land on Mars in 25 years

[Alpha]

It's almost 2019, so apparently NASA has the ability to land a probe on Mars, but they don't have the ability to attach a series of HD camera's to the probe so that they can then film what it looks like to enter Mars' orbit and land on Mars. No, there is no video footage watch so ever, from any camera's attached to the probe.

Where's the actual evidence of NASA landing on Mars?

Mainstream media doing its usual brainwashing.

[walrus]

Dr Millis, of Anderson University in Indiana, compared sex in space to having intercourse while “skydiving” but added that it was “not impossible.”

He told The Sun Online: “The issues surrounding the act all revolve around the free-fall, micro-gravity, environment experienced by astronauts.

“Imagine engaging in sexual activity while skydiving - every push or thrust will propel you in opposite directions.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/786738...ation-arousal/


If we are talking about this, I think all space stuff is fact

[Master]

Here’s why NASA is sending worms to space

The launch, taking place at NASA Kennedy Space Center on December 4, isn’t the only one we have to worry about. Our mission is dependent on a Soyuz rocket successfully carrying three crew members to the ISS the day before – the lift off has just been completed.

The cosmonaut Oleg Kononenko (Russia), and astronauts Anne McClain (US), and David Saint-Jacques (Canada) will help run the science experiments on the ISS once in space.

We are hoping the worms can help us uncover more about muscle loss in astronauts during spaceflight. Astronauts can lose up to 40 percent of their muscle mass during a long term mission, resulting in significant reductions in strength and physical capacity.

Indeed, a loss of strength of 40 percent is roughly equivalent to the change in strength that comes from aging from 40 to 80 years on Earth. The muscle loss phenomenon is therefore a significant obstacle for long term exploratory spaceflight, such as missions to Mars.

Exercise physiology research in the context of spaceflight was first conducted during the NASA Apollo and Skylab missions during the 1960 and 1970s. But despite over five decades of research in space, there are no countermeasures that can successfully prevent the negative effects of spaceflight.

Exercise does go some way to slow the rates of loss, however. To try and counteract muscle and bone loss, as well as detrimental effects on the heart and blood vessels, astronauts currently complete around two and a half hours of exercise each day.

Molecular approach

We will fly our worms to the ISS in specialized plastic bags with their food, where they will live in an incubator for six and a half days. They will then be frozen in the ISS’s freezer MELFI to prevent any further changes to the worms.

The worms will return to Earth in early 2019 where they will splash down into the Pacific Ocean off the coast of Los Angeles. We will then collect them and begin a program of extensive analysis.

Specifically, we aim to discover the molecular mechanisms of why muscle wastes away in spaceflight. The microscopic worms that we are using to achieve this are called C. elegans and are around around 1mm in length.

These worms have body wall muscles that are very similar to human skeletal muscle(one of three major muscle types, typically attached to bones) in both structure and function.

Previous spaceflight experiments have shown that about 150 muscle genes are expressed less during spaceflight than they are on Earth.
This includes important clusters of genes involved in movement and muscle architecture, specifically the components of something called the “muscle attachment complex” – which determines how muscles are assembled and contract.

We will therefore investigate changes in this complex. Some of our samples will be treated with drugs that, on Earth, can modify the function of this complex and test if drugs can prevent muscle loss in space.

Spaceflight is considered a model of accelerated aging and our rate of aging is linked to “insulin signalling” – how insulin increases the uptake of glucose into fat and muscle cells. As we get older, the body gets less efficient at metabolizing glucose.

If we can understand how spaceflight affects this process, we could use targeted interventions such as drugs to slow or prevent muscle atrophy in spaceflight. To test this out, we will use mutant worms that have a high or low uptake of glucose into their muscle cells and determine how their muscles are affected by spaceflight.

We also have a sub-team of researchers that will investigate the changes in motor neurons during spaceflight and how this affects muscle. Another will look at changes in the health and stress of neurons and determine whether there’s a particular mechanism that can help maintain it.

Collectively, the research will lead to the most comprehensive study of muscle loss in space ever conducted. It is also the first ever UK-led experiment on board the ISS and paves the way for future missions that have recently been announced by the UK Space Agency for 2021 onwards.

So let’s hope the two upcoming space launches go well. SpaceX Falcon 9 CRS-16 is targeted for take off at 1.38pm EST (6.38pm GMT) and will be live streamed on the NASA TV channel.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/techa...artanntp&pfr=1

[Alpha]

Flat, round, elliptical, pear-shaped...... you just have to ask yourself what geometrical shape is more logical to be hurtling through space without undue stresses, and where everything is pretty symmetrical. I don't think we have to delve into quantum physics to surmise that something close to a sphere is the natural shape that is more conducive to traveling through space as a celestial body.

Logical to be hurtling through space?

What are the odds that we're one of the only flat planets though. Or the only one, and exactly how many known spherical planets can be seen with the naked eye across the World or with high powered telescopes, observatories etc. If one is a flat Earther do we dispute that these are 'known' Planets to begin with?

The planets were originally called wondering stars. Take a look at the planets through high powered telescopes (there a heaps on YT), they look like light, not like the CGI images NASA presents.

Think about a pool table, just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is round as well, is a good example of your assumption.

[Freedom]

A look at some of the best images from Mars

[Alpha]

So are these the ones from Greenland or Devon Island? Fake, fake, fake, fake.

No one ever got back to me about all the dirt on the lens cap but the very next photo they released, there was no dirt to be seen.

We should start a GoFundMe for NASA to get a bunch of GoPro's to attach everywhere 'next time', obviously 50 million a day only goes so far.

[Spicoli]

Flat, round, elliptical, pear-shaped...... you just have to ask yourself what geometrical shape is more logical to be hurtling through space without undue stresses, and where everything is pretty symmetrical. I don't think we have to delve into quantum physics to surmise that something close to a sphere is the natural shape that is more conducive to traveling through space as a celestial body.

Logical to be hurtling through space?

What are the odds that we're one of the only flat planets though. Or the only one, and exactly how many known spherical planets can be seen with the naked eye across the World or with high powered telescopes, observatories etc. If one is a flat Earther do we dispute that these are 'known' Planets to begin with?

The planets were originally called wondering stars. Take a look at the planets through high powered telescopes (there a heaps on YT), they look like light, not like the CGI images NASA presents.

Think about a pool table, just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is round as well, is a good example of your assumption.

Pool table.. huh . So you're saying there's a great chance Earth would be the only flat planet, or what we see through telescopes is indistinguishable as flat or round? Save for the Moon clear to the naked eye as round. I thought there were other planets clear to the eye as round also? Depending on location.

[Freedom]

The planets were originally called wondering stars. Take a look at the planets through high powered telescopes (there a heaps on YT), they look like light, not like the CGI images NASA presents.

Think about a pool table, just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is round as well, is a good example of your assumption.

Thanks for the humorous posts, Alpha.

I for one can tell you're not serious, you're just playing with us.

[Alpha]

Flat, round, elliptical, pear-shaped...... you just have to ask yourself what geometrical shape is more logical to be hurtling through space without undue stresses, and where everything is pretty symmetrical. I don't think we have to delve into quantum physics to surmise that something close to a sphere is the natural shape that is more conducive to traveling through space as a celestial body.

Logical to be hurtling through space?

What are the odds that we're one of the only flat planets though. Or the only one, and exactly how many known spherical planets can be seen with the naked eye across the World or with high powered telescopes, observatories etc. If one is a flat Earther do we dispute that these are 'known' Planets to begin with?

The planets were originally called wondering stars. Take a look at the planets through high powered telescopes (there a heaps on YT), they look like light, not like the CGI images NASA presents.

Think about a pool table, just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is round as well, is a good example of your assumption.

Pool table.. huh . So you're saying there's a great chance Earth would be the only flat planet, or what we see through telescopes is indistinguishable as flat or round? Save for the Moon clear to the naked eye as round. I thought there were other planets clear to the eye as round also? Depending on location.

I'm just saying by you're reasoning the pool table example can be used. Just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is as well.

Sure planets look round, but solid? Take a look yourself if you get the chance. They look nothing like NASA's 'super' telescope images. Like I mentioned, the ancients referred to them as 'wandering stars'.

We only ever see 1 side of the moon from earth. Take away NASA's fake images and you can see the possibility of it being a disc.

[Alpha]

The planets were originally called wondering stars. Take a look at the planets through high powered telescopes (there a heaps on YT), they look like light, not like the CGI images NASA presents.

Think about a pool table, just because the balls are round, doesn't mean the table is round as well, is a good example of your assumption.

Thanks for the humorous posts, Alpha.

I for one can tell you're not serious, you're just playing with us.

I'm serious Freedom, and I mean know offense when I say this to you but you have already mentioned that you happily believe the bible, with no empirical evidence, so it's no surprise you believe this as well. Even when the evidence is shown clearly to you, you will continue to deny it.

There's a quote by someone saying something like 'it's harder to convince someone that they have been deceived, than it is to deceive them'.

You will freely agree that governments lie to us about everything, but are 100% sure they are telling you the truth about this. The propaganda they use to fool us is powerful.

I prefer to follow natural science rather than the formal science, that do not involve empirical procedures.

[Alpha]

And I just want to point out 1 thing, look at how quick they got Steph Curry to change his tune, to now being all jokes.

[p4pking]

That probably just means the corporation he plays for doesn’t want a guy who generates so much revenue for throwing a ball around to alienate some of their fan base and lose revenue by making himself look like a lunatic. When anonymous trolls do so it just provides a laugh. I’m sure there are plenty of people who might otherwise wear his jersey or shoes think “yea maybe not”.

[Alpha]

That probably just means the corporation he plays for doesn’t want a guy who generates so much revenue for throwing a ball around to alienate some of their fan base and lose revenue by making himself look like a lunatic. When anonymous trolls do so it just provides a laugh. I’m sure there are plenty of people who might otherwise wear his jersey or shoes think “yea maybe not”.

So you agree he was controlled?

Yea why have his own opinion? Follow what everyone else says, sheep.

[p4pking]

That probably just means the corporation he plays for doesn’t want a guy who generates so much revenue for throwing a ball around to alienate some of their fan base and lose revenue by making himself look like a lunatic. When anonymous trolls do so it just provides a laugh. I’m sure there are plenty of people who might otherwise wear his jersey or shoes think “yea maybe not”.

So you agree he was controlled?

Yea why have his own opinion? Follow what everyone else says, sheep.

I don’t watch basketball, but any athlete who plays for a franchise is controlled, of course. They work for that company and depend on viewers and merchandise sales to make everyone and themselves money. There is a line between having an opinion and saying ridiculous things, and people with a public image to maintain have to be much more careful of course. He might say “I feel women shouldn’t have rights and gay people should be killed”, but it would be career over, unless he was a Muslim I suppose.

[Alpha]

That probably just means the corporation he plays for doesn’t want a guy who generates so much revenue for throwing a ball around to alienate some of their fan base and lose revenue by making himself look like a lunatic. When anonymous trolls do so it just provides a laugh. I’m sure there are plenty of people who might otherwise wear his jersey or shoes think “yea maybe not”.

So you agree he was controlled?

Yea why have his own opinion? Follow what everyone else says, sheep.

I don’t watch basketball, but any athlete who plays for a franchise is controlled, of course. They work for that company and depend on viewers and merchandise sales to make everyone and themselves money. There is a line between having an opinion and saying ridiculous things, and people with a public image to maintain have to be much more careful of course. He might say “I feel women shouldn’t have rights and gay people should be killed”, but it would be career over, unless he was a Muslim I suppose.

If you want to compare having an opinion backed up by evidence, with those statements that's on you.

Ignoring blatant evidence, for only a story from authority, some film and images. That seems ridiculous to me. It's a religion to you.

I mean no offense, but it's cult like.