Do you believe about Apollo moon landing in 1969 ?

[TheSleeper]

I mean just landing on the moon SAFELY and leaving the moon "SAFELY" already require lots and lots of preparations and safety considerations.

OK, even if the moon landing was true, so, why how come after 1969 til 2006, totally 37 years, there is no other Moon programe to follow up ?

As far as I know, the Moon is full of raw materials (uranium ??) for fission.

Any comments ?

 

[BrownTown]

Comments?

Anyone who believes it was a fake is just paranoid. Why not send anymore missions for the last 37 years?, becasue there is absolutely no reason to go there except pride. Any material there is surely not worth the millions/pound it would cost to bring it back to earth. For the same price as sending a man to the moon you could feed 100,000 starving people for the rest of their lives. Sendign people to the moon is more or less spending billions just to flick off the rest of the world (which is probably why Bush is so big into getting us back to the moon).

I mean comeon, sending people to the moon is the biggest watse of resources ever, it was jsut a dick measuring contest back with the Soviet Union, and now that there is no Soviet Union there aint anyone left to measure dicks against...

 

[GoHAnSoN]

They prolly saw aliens there 37 years ago.
So, afraid to go again. End of story.

 

[Bassyhead]

Bringing any kind of materials back from a celestial body is prohibitively expensive except for samples. I think the "shipping costs" for NASA to the moon is on the order of $10,000 per pound. And let's not forget uranium is one of the heaviest elements we could mine from the moon (remember uranium is even heavier than lead).

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: Bassyhead
Bringing any kind of materials back from a celestial body is prohibitively expensive except for samples. I think the "shipping costs" for NASA to the moon is on the order of $10,000 per pound. And let's not forget uranium is one of the heaviest elements we could mine from the moon (remember uranium is even heavier than lead).

steel, gold, mercury, and several others are also heavier than lead. gold is a LOT heavier than lead. i deal with all of those on a weekly basis and in large quantities. just an FYI.


Lead = 11.3 g/cm3
Mercury = 13.5 g/cm3
Gold = 19.3 g/cm3
Iridium metal = 22.65 g/cm3


edit: after re-reading your post, i have no idea what made me think to post. i guess this is just information for anyone who reads it as it has nothing to do with the OP or your post.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
Comments?

Anyone who believes it was a fake is just paranoid. Why not send anymore missions for the last 37 years?, becasue there is absolutely no reason to go there except pride. Any material there is surely not worth the millions/pound it would cost to bring it back to earth. For the same price as sending a man to the moon you could feed 100,000 starving people for the rest of their lives. Sendign people to the moon is more or less spending billions just to flick off the rest of the world (which is probably why Bush is so big into getting us back to the moon).

I mean comeon, sending people to the moon is the biggest watse of resources ever, it was jsut a dick measuring contest back with the Soviet Union, and now that there is no Soviet Union there aint anyone left to measure dicks against...

You've convinced me - let's disband NASA and kill all R&D spending so we can feed the starving children.

Except actually R&D -> to growth & prosperity -> more fed children (and more children to be fed).

Anyway, this discussion isn't HT - take it to P&N. Back on topic - if you've been sucked in by the Apollo hoax crowd, read this, take two asperin and post again in the morning.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: Bassyhead
Bringing any kind of materials back from a celestial body is prohibitively expensive except for samples. I think the "shipping costs" for NASA to the moon is on the order of $10,000 per pound. And let's not forget uranium is one of the heaviest elements we could mine from the moon (remember uranium is even heavier than lead).

steel, gold, mercury, and several others are also heavier than lead. gold is a LOT heavier than lead. i deal with all of those on a weekly basis and in large quantities. just an FYI.

IIRC steel comes in around 8 g/cc - quite a bit less then lead.
Tungsten is also some heavy stuff (~19g/cc) - which is unfortunate because it has some interesting thermal properties (0 coef. of thermal expansion) which makes it useful for some spacecraft applications.

Lead = 11.3 g/cm3
Mercury = 13.5 g/cm3
Gold = 19.3 g/cm3
Iridium metal = 22.65 g/cm3


edit: after re-reading your post, i have no idea what made me think to post. i guess this is just information for anyone who reads it as it has nothing to do with the OP or your post.

 

[BrownTown]

if i'm not mistaken with a good telescope (prolly it has to be really really good) you can actually see the abandoned lander from earth. Also, do people who say we never made it to the moon also dispute that we have rovers on Mars, or satelites around Saturn and other planets? And they also must think that USSR and USA actually worked together during the Cold War to both send landers to the Moon (USSR was just robots). Do they beleive that there is a space station orbiting earth (casue i know a good telescope can see that thing)?.

Anyways, sorry about the P&N rant, but yeah personally I'd be OK with slashing NASA's budget in half or more. Is running little rovers around Mars really worth 500 million?, many of the research satelites are good, but there really is no pressing need so far as im concerned to learn about the chemical composition of other planets and such when there are much bigger problems in the world then wondering if liquid water was on Mars millions of years ago...

 

[gsellis]

It happened. If you lived in the area, Central Fl, you knew folks making it happen. There was no coverup.

I know one of the engineers who wrote the lander software. They had three computers that were maxed out during landing. Remember, they had tubes in the 60's and the lander was the reason that ICs made it big time. Each computer, which was just a ballistics computer, had to be the size of mini-desktop to fit. So, the fly-by-wire was run through 3 computers for redundancy. During final landing cycle, if ANY ONE had failed, the system would have automatically aborted and shot back to orbit. On Apollo 11's final approach, the site had an obstruction, Armstrong had to hover and move to the side. The computers were at about 100% utilization and they were then asked to do more... Our friend Pedro was one of the guys that was turning blue. The software team was afraid of the abort.

Oh, and there is plenty of good stuff on the moon and in the asteroid belt. But, it is not just lying around in piles labelled "gold" and "uranium". You still have to mine it and refine it. One lunar lander <> a recovery and refining facility. Transportation has been covered.

Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" has some of it covered in a story about a lunar indepence movement. A colony of miners would be required. Then railgun might be the best way to send it back with some in space intercepts. They could send it straight back as ballistic cargo, but the chance of error could yield unacceptable results as in falls down the gravity well. A non-ballistic approach adds shipping costs. So what ever it is, better be worth the cost. Also, consider what the influx of the conquered gold from the Americas did to the Spanish economy (it ruined it - made it hyper-inflated). You don't want to dump a whole lot of 'gold' into a market at once.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: BrownTown
if i'm not mistaken with a good telescope (prolly it has to be really really good) you can actually see the abandoned lander from earth.

Nope, you can't see it from earth. Or from Hubble either for that matter. They do bounce lasers off of some corner reflectors left there though.

Also, do people who say we never made it to the moon also dispute that we have rovers on Mars, or satelites around Saturn and other planets? And they also must think that USSR and USA actually worked together during the Cold War to both send landers to the Moon (USSR was just robots).

That's one of my favorite arguments - the USSR would've sold their left nut to prove that this was a hoax. And if anybody had the means to prove it, they did.

Do they beleive that there is a space station orbiting earth (casue i know a good telescope can see that thing)?.

You can see it naked-eye (http://www.heaves-above.com) but of course you need a decent telescope to make out that it's anything other then a bright speck moving across the sky.

Anyways, sorry about the P&N rant, but yeah personally I'd be OK with slashing NASA's budget in half or more. Is running little rovers around Mars really worth 500 million?, many of the research satelites are good, but there really is no pressing need so far as im concerned to learn about the chemical composition of other planets and such when there are much bigger problems in the world then wondering if liquid water was on Mars millions of years ago...

 

[gsellis]

I just figured out how to make my first million...

I compile a list of people who believe that the lunar landing, 9/11, and the Holocaust were hoaxes. Include addresses, phone numbers, e-mail. Sell it to starting cults, snake-oil saleman for a fee as easy prospects... PROFIT!

 

[fsardis]

you see all that is nice but consider one thing: NASA was just making a big experiment with that project and there were lots of things that could have gone wrong. My point is that nobody is confident enough to put such an attempt on TV and run the risk of showing millions of people the deaths of the astronauts. yet NASA was more than confident enough to do it which sounds a bit dodgy to me.
before you say anything, the word "believe" isnt in my vocabulary, i judge and draw conclusions only through hard facts and as such i cannot say anything about NASA landing or not. but think about my point for a while. anyone who is realistic and understands how dangerous such an expedition was will have doubts because of the fact NASA put it on TV. lets also not forget that at the time it was a race against russia and USA had already lost the first round. Could have been a bluff... we will never know for sure.

flame if you have to, just let me know so i bring my BBQ.

 

[iamaelephant]

If you don't believe in the moon landings then, well, you're a dunce. It happened. Accept it.

As for transporting cargo off of the Moon, it will be a simple task in 2018 when the Space Elevator is complete. Yup, this thing really is being built. It has already reached one mile high and is expected to stretch out 62,000 miles into space when completed in 2018. This will make shifting cargo through space a snap, and will open up all sorts of new opportunities for space travel.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: fsardis
you see all that is nice but consider one thing: NASA was just making a big experiment with that project and there were lots of things that could have gone wrong. My point is that nobody is confident enough to put such an attempt on TV and run the risk of showing millions of people the deaths of the astronauts. yet NASA was more than confident enough to do it which sounds a bit dodgy to me.
before you say anything, the word "believe" isnt in my vocabulary, i judge and draw conclusions only through hard facts and as such i cannot say anything about NASA landing or not.

You're going to have a tough life if you refuse to learn from the accumulated knowledge and insist on examining the "hard fact" for everything yourself. Should I trust that its safe to drive across that bridge - or do I go get an engineering degree and analyze the structure myself? And you'll have to back to first principles of course - deriving everything from experiment. Because Hooke, Newton, Euler, all those old dead guys? You can't trust that - you need the hard facts!

No, I haven't gone to the moon and seen the lander formyself. I don't have to - the eveidence presented is overwhelming, and no reasonable challenge to that evidence has survived.

but think about my point for a while. anyone who is realistic and understands how dangerous such an expedition was will have doubts because of the fact NASA put it on TV. lets also not forget that at the time it was a race against russia and USA had already lost the first round. Could have been a bluff... we will never know for sure.

flame if you have to, just let me know so i bring my BBQ.

Let me see if I understand this... your argument is that if there is a possibility of failure, NASA won't put it on live TV and the moon landings were on live TV so there must have been no possibility of failure. And since we know this is really hard and there is a huge chance of failure for the real mission, it must be fake.

Except - NASA has put plenty of failures on live TV - some including loss of life.

If they didn't put it on live TV I'd be much more likely to doubt it.

 

[fsardis]

heh, there is that word again "believe". hard and raw facts anyone? and dont say it was on TV cause there are millions of people who "believe" it was staged. again, the fact that nasa didnt hesitate to put such a mission on TV means they were too confident. having said that, how come they dont do the same with recent missions? i mean, now the technology is more refined so why dont they put it live on TV? because they are affraid people will witness some accident and of course because there is technology involved that you are not supposed to see.
so no I want accept it until there is decent proof that it has happened, and trust me an american flag fluttering in the non-existant wind on the moon is anything but decent proof.

now where are those sausages? i see the charcoals are getting red.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: fsardis
heh, there is that word again "believe". hard and raw facts anyone? and dont say it was on TV cause there are millions of people who "believe" it was staged. again, the fact that nasa didnt hesitate to put such a mission on TV means they were too confident. having said that, how come they dont do the same with recent missions? i mean, now the technology is more refined so why dont they put it live on TV?

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/

Everything is on Live TV, from the shuttle launches, to the Stardust recovery, Mars missions, etc. Not to mention the independent media coverage of these events.

because they are affraid people will witness some accident and of course because there is technology involved that you are not supposed to see.
so no I want accept it until there is decent proof that it has happened, and trust me an american flag fluttering in the non-existant wind on the moon is anything but decent proof.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#flag
http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/flag/flag.htm

now where are those sausages? i see the charcoals are getting red.

 

[fsardis]

since you are going to reply with links i will do the same

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

also try this, http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/

look at the sample movies

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: fsardis
since you are going to reply with links i will do the same

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

also try this, http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/

look at the sample movies

You raised specific issues or questions, I replied with specific links explaining or disproving those issues. Why don't you address that? I'd like to understand can you claim that NASA doesn't "put it on live TV"?? I suppose that's all faked as well?

Instead you simply reply with links to yet another conspiracy theory site :roll: Wake me up when you have something original.

 

[Bobthelost]

So let's see, your "hard facts" are as follows:

1) NASA was just making a big experiment with that project and there were lots of things that could have gone wrong.
Firstly that's just opinion. Pioneering yes, but gold plated to hell and back, and only an incremental increase in challenge anyway. There's always things that can go wrong, infact when you're dealing with what's effectivly a giant fuel air explosive you're certain to have them go wrong in the end.

2) Nobody is confident enough to put such an attempt on TV and run the risk of showing millions of people the deaths of the astronauts.
Bollocks they aren't. All of the earlier rocket launches were more dangerous and would have looked worse on TV (fireballs are so much more interesting than a screen of static as the camera cuts off).

You might not have belive in your dictionary, but i dare say the phrase "thick as two short planks" has been used so much that you've marked the corner of the page.

 

[MrDudeMan]

a flag would definitely move in space. i cant believe people actually think we didnt land on the moon. that is almost unreal to me.

 

[fsardis]

heh, nice of you to say that bob. i think my sausages are done and before they get cold ill start eating while you take a look at the links i provided before you post again.

please note that i am neither for nor against the idea of landing on the moon, im doing this for arguments sake as there is definitely no strong proof that it ever happened or did not happen. although you are right that its not the first time they launched a rocket to space, it was the very first attempt to actually launch a rocket that will deploy a pod onto the moon. the rocket part was not hard to do, the landing pod was the risky business and of course the take off of the said pod from the moon. incremental increase in the difficulty you say? are you kidding me? this is exponential increase in difficulty. they had to put a rocket into orbit, then launch the pod to the moon, land the pod safely, and the bring the pod back to the spacecraft.
i like the incremental increase part. of course if its an increase its incremental... dare i say the phrase "oxymoron anyone??"

 

[MrDudeMan]

do you even know what an oxymoron is? incremental works well with increase since it is accurately describing what is happening. "bitter sweet" is an oxymoron, not incremental increase.

 

[fsardis]

incremental increase dosnt work well where i come from, as for oxymoron, i can assure you i know better what it means cause its a damn greek word and as greek i think i know my own language better than you.

are you gonna talk about the topic now or have you ran out of ideas?

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: fsardis
incremental increase dosnt work well where i come from, as for oxymoron, i can assure you i know better what it means cause its a damn greek word and as greek i think i know my own language better than you.

are you gonna talk about the topic now or have you ran out of ideas?

you are just talking out of your ass now. you think your origin makes you more credible than anyone else when it comes to words? sorry, but "where you come from" must be a hole in the ground filled with primates. that is not an oxymoron and how the hell do you know my knowledge of greek?

the increase could be exponential, incremental, or any other word that would describe how difficult the increase actually is. it is a necessary adjective in this situation, thus by definition it is NOT an oxymoron. this is the highly technical forum, and since your arguement about the lunar landing being a hoax is total crap, i had to find something in your post to argue.

 

[fsardis]

first of all you are using a greek word, and i am greek. now if you call greece a hole in the ground filled with primates, not only are you not in the position of arguing about the meaning of the word but you are uneducated as well.

from the very few things i understand from your post is that you cannot come up with a good argument about the topic in this thread so you started crapping. nice one mate, see you when you are a bit educated ok?

now, is anyone willing to talk seriously about the topic of this thread or is it dead?