|
|
|
|
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/28/2007 10:09:39 PM | | Aah... I see that my sarcasm-meter might need recalibrating... I agree, though. Some need to do a little more research to help prevent their knee from hitting their chin concerning certain subjects. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/30/2007 1:41:04 AM | I am a teacher and I am often amazed at 12 and 13 year old kids lack of knowledge about the world but it is really scary to think that adults in the twenty-first century still doubt that men landed on the moon.
I doubt that the Brits are landing an unmaned spacecraft on the moon "to see what it is made of". Perhaps to further understand the make up of the moon but when you simplify things it sounds silly. Just a note the Russians were actually the first to successfully land a probe on the moon and they definately would not have gone along with a hoax.
I was glad to see some people respond to the lady who asked about the shot of Neil Armstrong. Yes, a camera mounted on the leg of the LEM. But her second question shows the lack of understanding of how monumental an effort was made by so many dedicated and brilliant men and women.
"So why don't they use the moon anymore they clearly are doing things up there"
Right, well we don't have a way to get there lady. It is not a trip to the grocery store. The space shuttle is not capable despite what you see in the movies. There are no more functional Saturn V rockets and the technicians who were resposible for building it and guiding it on its mission were scattered to the four winds after the public got bored with moon shots.
Yes, we still do things in space but it is much nearer space than the distance to the moon. A big push to the moon is actually a value. It is a great platform for manufacturing the materials for a major space station. It is a training ground for Mars colonies. If we ever get fusion off of the ground it is a great source of H3 and it is the most important military outpost we could possibly have as it hold the power of position. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/30/2007 3:30:33 AM | Right, well we don't have a way to get there lady. It is not a trip to the grocery store. The space shuttle is not capable despite what you see in the movies. There are no more functional Saturn V rockets and the technicians who were resposible for building it and guiding it on its mission were scattered to the four winds after the public got bored with moon shots.
Did you know there is a project under way right now to go back to the moon? Lockheed Martin is builing the "Orion" capsule for it. I don't know all the detail for the return to the moon but I'm sure its out there on the internet. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/30/2007 7:48:59 AM |
There are no more functional Saturn V rockets and the technicians who were resposible for building it and guiding it on its mission were scattered to the four winds after the public got bored with moon shots.
If memory serves, there was a minor scandal in the late 80's when it was realized that we lost the designs, and could no longer build a Saturn V if we wanted to.
(Not that we would want to, since technology is incomparably better now.0 | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/30/2007 11:10:01 AM |
If memory serves, there was a minor scandal in the late 80's when it was realized that we lost the designs, and could no longer build a Saturn V if we wanted to.
Is that true? | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/30/2007 1:43:14 PM |
Is that true?
I looked into it, and it appears to be urban legend. A 1986 book made the claim, which was refuted a decade later by NASA after it had already become publically accepted.
What is agreed is that it couldn't be built today because of the parts are long unavailable and the launch facilities have changed.
http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/saturn_five_000313.html | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/30/2007 4:17:12 PM | Slashdot (slashdot.org) is currently running a thread about the Saturn V design information. Apparently anything that was public domain is being removed. Paranoia is probably the actual reason. But the concensus as I see it, is that there is no longer the published knowledge (security clearance or not) available to rebuild a Saturn V. A lot of knowledge would need to be redeveloped. Of course, we might improve the odd thing here and there too.
As far as knowing what the Moon is made out of, there was a satellite sent to the moon to do a survey. It had all kinds of instrumentation on it, including neutron detectors I believe. It's name escapes me, but a search through things at Space.com or any of the Moon sites (such as moonsociety.org) should turn it up. But if we use the Sun and cosmic rays as the probes, we can get all kinds of gamma, x-ray and neutron information from the Moon. That includes composition information. How deep this information probes the moon depends on what kind of information we are talking about. Surface to tens of meters for sure. Analyzing the orbits of satellites orbiting the Moon will get gravitational information on the scale of 10,000 km for sure, possibly finer.
The premise of this thread sucks. We did visit the moon in the Apollo missions. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 1:42:11 AM | The premise of this thread "sucks"? I have read quite a bit of information on this, but probably not enough. What I have seen, for the most part, is some "crackpots" coming in with some very thought-provoking evidence that makes, at least, a solid case that we did not really go there. The first time I was exposed to this issue, I was very saddened. "Damn, at least we went to the moon! come on..." And after the crackpots had their say, I waited for NASA representatives to quite rightly ****slap the naysayers with the kind of evidence that you might gather quite easily, having "been there", after all. A point-by-point assessment followed by the deconstruction of each skeptic's assertions. What I heard was some seemingly intelligent representatives of NASA issuing blanket "assurances" that yes, we went to the moon, everybody knows we went to the moon, I can't imagine what kind of lunatic would even suggest that we somehow "faked" the entire thing, we've got records, public records- to say all that was fabricated, why that's just crazy, people: Capricorn 1 is just a movie, and a mediocre one at that, pull your heads out of your asses, people- what kind of disenchanted crackpot would one have to be to try and denigrate all these fine men & women who made America's greatest moment not only possible, but made it HAPPEN! I can't believe I'm even being called on to "defend" reality! We went to the moon, end of story, period, thank you..
Condescending marginalization of "conspiracy nuts" who have nothing better to do, naturally, than to try to tarnish America's image, at a time when we should all pull together.......Ok. Someone just prove we went there, please. I want to believe. Not circumstantial evidence of all the scientific and technological breakthroughs BECAUSE we went to the moon. SPACE, yes.. People say "There's no way they could keep a conspiracy like that secret!" Well, no one ( including me, and I'll bet a lot of the crackpots) wants to think it didn't happen, that it was all Mankind's triumph, not just the U.S.'s . Yet a lot of people seem to be questioning this. Have you ever known anyone who had high levels of clearance in the U.S. Govt.? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that, like the man I once knew, they probably seemed very cynical and more burdened by their knowledge than anything else. The more the U.S. Govt. engages in the condescending, highly transparent ( Debate Class 101) blanket dismissals of some GOOD questions and encourages the marginalization of naysayers rather than even TOKEN acknowledgement that these people might have a point, the more it leads people like me to assume the government is essentially "LYING****UCKERS" (-Bill Hicks) and puts the burden of proof on the Govt. itself about matters ranging from Pearl Harbor, Vietnam, the OKC Murrah Building Bombing ( I was 2 miles away) , the 9/11 "attacks", and most sadly of all (to me) the moon landings. -- still wanting to believe that one at least. | |
|
Mr H2O
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 59 | |
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 2:38:06 AM | Somebody went somewhere because we got pictures of earth on good old 35 mm film
--long before anyone could "PhotoShop" a digital image.
Sort of funny how those old pics seem to match the ones from the ultra-high-tech-satellites we have today, huh ??
The imagination and creativity from an artists mind who faked the photos
matching so perfectly with the satellite ones taken 40 years later...c'mon folks, .
The conspiracy thing is crap. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 4:30:30 AM | | Somebody got a camera into space? I don't know why I didn't see it before: the conspiracy thing is crap; the conspiracy thing is crap; the conspiracy........................ | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 5:46:10 AM |
But the concensus as I see it, is that there is no longer the published knowledge (security clearance or not) available to rebuild a Saturn V. A lot of knowledge would need to be redeveloped.
How is this possible? This event was supposedly mankind's greatest exploration achievement. This machine was good enough to make this trip to the moon, and get those astronauts back safely, and it's just shelved.. the 'knowledge' forgotten?
I don't buy the money expenditure or chest thumping scenarios.. not for a moment.
They supposedly walked on the moon for crying out loud.
I must have missed an important part in this story somewhere. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 6:14:46 AM | I can't blame you for not visiting slashdot to read the thread, the noise there tends to be quite prevalent.
There were a lot of contractors involved in producing parts for the Saturn V. NASA asked for a certain minimal set of specifications of the part, and left its actual implementation up to the contractor. If you were lucky, all of the information on that part is published in the patent literature, but more often than not at least some of the information was kept as a trade secret. NASA never did have all the specs on all the parts involved. Do companies maintain the trade secret information on all their parts forever? Probably not, and certainly not if they cease to exist. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 7:06:26 AM | Oh no there are no plans left of the North American Mustang, or the Hudson Hawk or probably that pinacle of 60's technology old color TV's
Conspiracy Conspiracy Conspiracy Conspiracy Conspiracy ohnoooo!!!!!!!!!!!!
Old technology has no value ( wanna buy TRS 80?) why keep the plans?
Would you build a brand new 1966 Buick to drive around the world? Why would you want a 1966 Saturn V? | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 8:06:26 AM |
How is this possible? This event was supposedly mankind's greatest exploration achievement. This machine was good enough to make this trip to the moon, and get those astronauts back safely, and it's just shelved.. the 'knowledge' forgotten?
I don't buy the money expenditure or chest thumping scenarios.. not for a moment.
They supposedly walked on the moon for crying out loud.
I must have missed an important part in this story somewhere.
The plans call for components and technology that hasn't been around for 30 years. Now they use fancy gadgets called "mycrowprocessors."
Go to the Smithsonian and look into the Mercury capsule. You will see a dashboard operated entirely by mechanical switches. It is breathtaking. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 8:07:09 AM |
Would you build a brand new 1966 Buick to drive around the world?
Are you serious??
Look at that beauty!
http://tinyurl.com/3akddb | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 8:32:22 AM |
U.S. Govt. engages in the condescending, highly transparent ( Debate Class 101) blanket dismissals of some GOOD questions
Well, bring up some of these "good" questions. I, for one, will attempt to address them. If you actually do want to believe, you might even be willing to listen to the answers.
The whole space program of the '60's (Mercury, Gemini, then Apollo) was a lead up to the moon landing. No one is denying those missions. What "wall" did we hit that kept us from finally landing on the moon? And why didn't the Soviets cry foul??
Those are just 2 of my "good" questions to the deniers.
I must have missed an important part in this story somewhere.
I would say you did. Most people now don't realize what a hurry we were in to get to the moon. Kennedy's timeline was very challenging. Engineers didn't have time to document everything really well. We would have to reinvent some parts of the wheel, so to speak, to get back to the moon at this point. The moonshot was a political pursuit more than a fact-finding mission. We can send unmanned probes to the moon and find out just as much for much less money. And, yes, money plays a big part in the equation, as it usually does.
If the naysayers really wanted to find out these things, one would think that they might actually crack open some books about this. Perhaps to some, denying is more entertaining than learning... | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 8:50:12 AM | | I should also add, we don't need the plans for the Saturn IV, LEM, Apollo space capsule or any of the other equipment that got us to the moon in the first place. That stuff is 60's technology designed on old fashion drafting tables. Now we have 3D solid modeling and very sophisticated computers and software. This is the 21st century. We have newer technologies, more powerful more efficient rocket motors. The journey originally took 3 days to get to the moon. Now we will do it in less than a day. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 9:07:15 AM |
We have newer technologies, more powerful more efficient rocket motors.
Yes, but I think the over-engineered engines on the ole Saturn V have a reliability advantage over these highly-tuned, newer engines. Not a bad school of thought for what's at stake, I think. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 9:36:07 AM | Yes, but I think the over-engineered engines on the ole Saturn V have a reliability advantage over these highly-tuned, newer engines. Not a bad school of thought for what's at stake, I think.
Well, they would have to (and probably are) design new rocket engines for this trip. The shuttle rockets are different for different parameters. They might be able to use existing rocket engines from other type rockets such as the models they launch planetary space probes with. Both Boeing and Lockheen Martin manufacture rockets. I don't know who will make the LEM. It would be nice if it was Northrop Grumman since Grumman Aerospace was the original builder of the original LEM. I used to work for them once, but I was in High School during that project. But I was in the very hangar it was built in. They had a big photograph of it on the wall there. I grew up 5 miles from there and used to see the Super Guppy cargo planes flying in and out of Grumman. The wings for the Space Shuttles were built in the very same hangar. I designed some tools for them. I'm sure they will be starting over again but unlike the original manned landing, now we know how to do it. But there will still be testing of new designs and equipment. You just don't design, build it and go. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 9:46:41 AM | Hmmm...maybe the Brits went to find the tracks left by Armstrong et al. Unless the British launch is a wag-the-dog, too.
Regardless, the crew returned to earth with a rock that apparently cannot be found anywhere on earth--contains a lot of irridium, not a naturally-occurring element, PLUS enough lunar spectrometric minerals to fair much pin it as a moon rock. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 6:10:30 PM |
now we know how to do it.
Do you think they are going to do it the same way? Having a LEM was a stroke of genius, and it obviously (to the knowledgeable) worked, but everyone admits that the docking procedure was always a little tense and awkward. | |
|
Mr H2O
|
Joined: 10/31/2006
Msg: 72 | |
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 9:08:22 PM | Skydiving from space
A space chief is calling for astronauts to make the ultimate skydive
- a 250 mile plunge to Earth from orbit.
Richard Speck says the daring dive is the perfect way to send humans
to the final frontier and back without the need for a costly spaceship.
Instead their special spacesuits would incorporate life-support systems,
a heat shield to stop them from burning up, and a parachute.
Speck is president of Micro-Space Inc, of Denver, Colorado, one of the private rocket
companies competing to run private flights into space and later to the Moon and Mars.
He says each astronaut would launch in a protective shroud rather than a spaceship,
atop an ultra-light rocket that burns only as much fuel as the average family car in a year.
At a height of around 30 miles, the shroud would be ejected.
Astronauts would use SatNav systems and tiny rocket jets to steer them
to their space station targets, Speck says.
Docking woould be as simple as putting your car in a garage.
taken from http://news.skymania.com/2006/04/skydiving-from-space.html | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 7/31/2007 9:30:19 PM | "It was just some american leaders who wanted to pull the wool over our eyes and many were dosy enough to take the bait."
^^^
Uhh...I think you wanted to post this in the "Iraq" thread.
As far as the OP is concerned, this isn't a discussion of religion or the existence of God; this is a discussion of an ACTUAL event that ACTUALLY took place and there is ACTUAL physical evidence of that event. | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 8/1/2007 1:59:06 AM |
The whole space program of the '60's (Mercury, Gemini, then Apollo) was a lead up to the moon landing. No one is denying those missions. What "wall" did we hit that kept us from finally landing on the moon? And why didn't the Soviets cry foul??
Those are just 2 of my "good" questions to the deniers.
Sir, I'm not a denier, I just remain unconvinced. I could ask a number of questions about shadows, stars, & bloopers, but you are probably more familiar with these than I am. And could very well have reasonable explanations. However, if the landings are indeed incontrovertible reality, why the .....
If the naysayers really wanted to find out these things, one would think that they might actually crack open some books about this. Perhaps to some, denying is more entertaining than learning...
..arrogance with which "deniers" are (PERHAPS) put in their place as entertainment seekers, too busy naysayin' to do any book learnin? If a denier is literally unable to face reality, then they must be mentally ill, and they aren't brought out of their hallucinatory refuge by airs of cheap superiority. And surely people that ask pertinent questions that resonate within the minds of many (this doesn't make them truth-revealing, just pertinent) should be welcomed into a friendly discourse that addresses their questions, not just having their questions answered with condescenscion & more questions. IF the facts are on one's side, this only creates the impression of stonewalling and obfuscation, and is counterproductive- marginalizing "deniers" for no good reason.
Your questions? well.. that wall would "seem" to be the Van Allen Radiation Belt, which is a "concern" for those who would journey outside of the Earth's orbit, starting with the Apollo program(?) .. And assuming, just for the sake of denial (sheer intoxication)- that's a very good question: Why WOULDN'T the Russians raise a stink? Well, that's one we may never know (assuming, still).. But, correct me if I'm wrong, but they never put up much effort to actually GO to the moon anyway, did they? Why not? Because of character defects exacerbated by Communism? | |
|
| Do you believe we landed on the moon?
Posted: 8/1/2007 8:44:49 AM |
IF the facts are on one's side, this only creates the impression of stonewalling and obfuscation, and is counterproductive- marginalizing "deniers" for no good reason.
Do you remain unconvinced by everything you've read and seen about this, or are you just turned off by the perceived antagonism of the "other side"? Is distaste really enough to make you disagree completely? Put yourself in the same position-- how sweet would you come off to a flat earth society member whose opinion is strong, whose argument is weak, and whose skin is thin, shall we say?
And there's no stonewalling or obfuscation on this thread. I'll address your points posthaste:
Your questions? well.. that wall would "seem" to be the Van Allen Radiation Belt, which is a "concern" for those who would journey outside of the Earth's orbit, starting with the Apollo program(?) .. And assuming, just for the sake of denial (sheer intoxication)- that's a very good question: Why WOULDN'T the Russians raise a stink? Well, that's one we may never know (assuming, still).. But, correct me if I'm wrong, but they never put up much effort to actually GO to the moon anyway, did they? Why not? Because of character defects exacerbated by Communism?
Yes, there is the deadly Van Allen Belt. However, it would only kill someone if they hung around in it for about a month or so. We just shoot through it, so it isn't even as bad as a day at the beach.
As for the Soviets not even trying, apparently you didn't read Msg #26. It was so well-informed that I already referred another poster to it. I really have to stand by my earlier statement that you found offensive. If you can't even be bothered to read this very thread, how can you feel justified in your indignation against my comment? | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
