Do you believe about Apollo moon landing in 1969 ?

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: 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?

I've got a couple of points above that you are conveniently ignoring.

 

[fsardis]

no,no, by all means im not ignoring. i did read them. i did post a couple of links on the previous page, im waiting for comments from you. apparently you are the only one i see here who is willing to do a decent discussion and put the grill fork to the side. hopefully others will join cause i do like this topic.

 

[Armitage]

You posted links to conspiracy sites - I could post links to sites disproving them. In fact I did on the flag bit simply because it's among the oldest and weakest conspiracy argument - Phil Plait on Bad Astronomy does a better job then I in explaining it. If you have something to counter that, I'm all ears.

What about your claim that it must be fake because NASA broadcast it live? That was an interesting tack I haven't heard before. Or the claim that NASA doesn't broadcast stuff live now - was that just ignorance? The whole original knowledge/hard facts bit you started with is an interesting debate as well. But I'm not interested in picking through entire conspiracy sites.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Bassyhead
...I think the "shipping costs" for NASA to the moon is on the order of $10,000 per pound...

I dont know about the moon, but I know a guy who works on weather satelites, and they pay $150k per OUNCE, or $2.4 Million per pound. And thats just to get into orbit, the moon is how many times further away than a synchronous orbit?

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Bassyhead
...I think the "shipping costs" for NASA to the moon is on the order of $10,000 per pound...

I dont know about the moon, but I know a guy who works on weather satelites, and they pay $150k per OUNCE, or $2.4 Million per pound. And thats just to get into orbit, the moon is how many times further away than a synchronous orbit?

That would put the cost of a typical GEO COMSAT in the 10s of billions of dollars - they are expensive (up to hundreds of millions for payload & launch) but not that expensive.

edit - you said weather, which is typically low earth orbit. Which is an easier/cheaper orbit to reach, so the point still holds

 

[fsardis]

gotta give me some time to read those links of yours. i spent a few moments reading bits and pieces from each link but i need to do it more carefully.
as far as nasa broadcasting live on tv, the link didnt work for me but as far as i know they dont give you live feed from inside the rocket nor from right inside the space station when they arrive. all you see is the rocket launch and thats it. perhaps im wrong, i dont live in the states and thus i dont get to see everything you guys see. its no use denying the fact that for sucha dangerous mission and never attempted before never the less it would have been foolish to broadcast it on TV risking to show millions of people the deaths of astronauts. i think its a strong argument. if you do take a look at the links i provided, the one with the video especially and preview each DVD on that site you will see some rather strong arguments about the unreliability of the pictures and the whole footage. the strongest argument ever used being the shadows and the lighting which according to photo experts comes from artificial sources similar to those found in photo studios. do have a look and let me know what you think.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: 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!

Hey fsardis, can I get your name, address, phone number and email address?
You have any preferences for the kind of cults you might be interested in?

 

[smopoim86]

I don't think we did because of many reasons, but the most logical is: if we have already been to the moon with 30 year old technology why is it taking so long to redevolope the lunar program. They have spent the previous 5-10 years planning a trip to the moon that is not scedueled till 2012.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: smopoim86
I don't think we did because of many reasons, but the most logical is: if we have already been to the moon with 30 year old technology why is it taking so long to redevolope the lunar program. They have spent the previous 5-10 years planning a trip to the moon that is not scedueled till 2012.

probably because there is no real motivation to do so right now. 30 years ago we had to win...now we are just doing it for the heck of it basically. why rush? they are undoubtedly making the trip very complicated, hence the long wait. rushing causes accidents.

 

[DrPizza]

fsardis,
For what it's worth, you are either a troll or a complete idiot. Also, for what it's worth, there are people out there who are convinced that the Earth is flat. Really. (I'm hoping you at least realize the Earth is approximately spherical (oblate spheroid if you wish))

Now, suppose one of those crackpots were to come in here and argue that the Earth is flat. (Complete with links to crackpot sites.) I hope you realize that everyone would think that either A) They were simply trolling and really knew better
or B) They are complete idiots.

Now, apply that situation to what you're proposing in this thread. That's the question most of us (all?) are asking ourselves about your... troll or idiot?

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
fsardis,
For what it's worth, you are either a troll or a complete idiot. Also, for what it's worth, there are people out there who are convinced that the Earth is flat. Really. (I'm hoping you at least realize the Earth is approximately spherical (oblate spheroid if you wish))

Now, suppose one of those crackpots were to come in here and argue that the Earth is flat. (Complete with links to crackpot sites.) I hope you realize that everyone would think that either A) They were simply trolling and really knew better
or B) They are complete idiots.

Now, apply that situation to what you're proposing in this thread. That's the question most of us (all?) are asking ourselves about your... troll or idiot?

I'm going with option B. Kicking your ass and collecting the two hundred dollars.

 

[fsardis]

well pizza dude, you see the earth isnt flat and that has been proven in many diferent ways that are undeniable. i dont think the same applies to our current topic as all the proof provided have been proven unreliable.
i am the troll you say? i didnt swear or call names anyone, i play by the rules and i am here to do an open discussion. after all this is the highly technical forum. kinda nice of you to contribute but i hope you realise you are the troll in here. thanks for dropping a line though.

 

[fsardis]

sorry for the double post but i felt i had to address the pizza troll guy on a seperate post. smopoim86 made another nice argument and another guy replied to him saying that america has no real interest and they do it for the hell of it. seriously mate, do you know many things that governments do for the hell of it? controlling the moon is probably the most important military advantage you can have against other countries. you call that "the hell of it"?

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: fsardis
sorry for the double post but i felt i had to address the pizza troll guy on a seperate post. smopoim86 made another nice argument and another guy replied to him saying that america has no real interest and they do it for the hell of it. seriously mate, do you know many things that governments do for the hell of it? controlling the moon is probably the most important military advantage you can have against other countries. you call that "the hell of it"?

Because there are several internation treaties in effect... which Ban any military use of celestial bodies, including weapon testing or as military bases.
Text

 

[iamaelephant]

I'm confused as to how the moon could give anyone a military advantage? Yeah I suppose you could spend billions of dollars transporting weapons to the moon to test them or spend many months and many more billions transporting soldier to and fro (for some reason) but why would you? Really I'm quite confused.

 

[BrownTown]

Also, the reason that its still hard to get to the moon is that the technology really hasn't changed in the last 30 years. Ya gotta remember, technology doesn't really advance as fast as most people would like to think. The microelctronics sector advances very fast only becasue it is relatively new. Mechanical engineering type problems (like getting people to the moon) have been around for alot longer time, and its alot harder to find a new way to get serious improvement out of it. Especially since the most signifigant new advance in getting power (nucelar energy) is too taboo to use. Nuclear rockets might help reduce costs, but can you really see anyone willing to support technology that could easily involve massive releases of radiation?

 

[iamaelephant]

Sigh. Nuclear propulsion does not release massive amounts ofradiation. Statements like that are the reason people are so afraid of nuclear technology.

 

[fsardis]

Originally posted by: Falcon39
I'm confused as to how the moon could give anyone a military advantage? Yeah I suppose you could spend billions of dollars transporting weapons to the moon to test them or spend many months and many more billions transporting soldier to and fro (for some reason) but why would you? Really I'm quite confused.

it was called star wars (not the movie) and it was an american strategic plan of using the moon and various satelites to take down nuclear missiles. never happened though, wonder why?

technology hasnt improved in the last 30 years.... now thats a good one. lets just take computers into perspective shall we? the last 30 years how many times smaller and lighter and more powerful have they become? so how much weight and space inside the shuttle and the rocket do you save just by computers alone? lets think a little before posting arguments ok? and i wont mention the various other structural improvements they have made, that not only make the shuttle lighter but they make it more reliable and stronger.

 

[Armitage]

There's a huge military advantage to orbit - but essentially none for the moon. It's to far away & hard to get to, you're at the bottom of another gravity well, etc. The moon may well be militarily & economically important at some point - but not now.

 

[BrownTown]

It COULD release massive amounts of radiactive material if something bad happens, thats what people wory about, something messing up and the readioactive material being released. Also, there are nuclear rockets which intentionally release readiation, and these are the most powerfully designs. Howefver due to the fact that the release radiation they are only designed to work in space, and not for launching from earth which is currently the big problem.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: fsardis

Originally posted by: Falcon39
I'm confused as to how the moon could give anyone a military advantage? Yeah I suppose you could spend billions of dollars transporting weapons to the moon to test them or spend many months and many more billions transporting soldier to and fro (for some reason) but why would you? Really I'm quite confused.

it was called star wars (not the movie) and it was an american strategic plan of using the moon and various satelites to take down nuclear missiles. never happened though, wonder why?

technology hasnt improved in the last 30 years.... now thats a good one. lets just take computers into perspective shall we? the last 30 years how many times smaller and lighter and more powerful have they become? so how much weight and space inside the shuttle and the rocket do you save just by computers alone? lets think a little before posting arguments ok? and i wont mention the various other structural improvements they have made, that not only make the shuttle lighter but they make it more reliable and stronger.

Clearly you are just trying to troll so i probably should respond, but here we go anyways:

First off Star Wars aint about setting stuff up on the moon, that would make no sense at all since the missile deffense system would be waay to far away to be effective. The point was to have sattelites in earth orbit shoot down missiles.

Also, your comment about the advancement of computers clearly shows that you did nto read past the first few words of my post since i made it very clear that the computer industry and the rocket industry are completely different. People were launching rockets way before the transistor was even invented. It is entirely true that there have not been huge advances in the technology. Yes you can now make lighter space ships, but you cant really produce much more power than before. So things get a little cheaper, but not that much. Also, a good amount of the cost goes into the design of the craft, and just the design phase would cost billions, even if the rocket itself were cheaper.

 

[fsardis]

the moon not important now? if not now then when? china is growing fast and russia is back in the game. it doesnt matter when moon will be important. the sooner you get your hands on a strategic point the better and if it had happened 30 years ago then USA would own the moon today. but they dont.
its amazing if you think about it, the fact that they put humans on the moob 30 years ago but now the will just drop a robot at best. what happened to all the plans about scientific stations on the moon and what not?

why do you want to call the other opinion a consipracy theory and you dont even want to think of the chance that the american government is the one who has made the conspiracy? that is what i cannot understand. most people's minds are set and they talk from belief and not because they know anything on the topic.

 

[Armitage]

Originally posted by: fsardis

Originally posted by: Falcon39
I'm confused as to how the moon could give anyone a military advantage? Yeah I suppose you could spend billions of dollars transporting weapons to the moon to test them or spend many months and many more billions transporting soldier to and fro (for some reason) but why would you? Really I'm quite confused.

it was called star wars (not the movie) and it was an american strategic plan of using the moon and various satelites to take down nuclear missiles. never happened though, wonder why?

Star Wars never had anything to do with the moon.

technology hasnt improved in the last 30 years.... now thats a good one. lets just take computers into perspective shall we? the last 30 years how many times smaller and lighter and more powerful have they become? so how much weight and space inside the shuttle and the rocket do you save just by computers alone?

Very little - the vast majority of the weight (on the order of 90%) is fuel, followed by structure & propulsion, followed by payload. Electronics & flight control make up only a very small fraction of the weight of any launch vehicle.

Structural technology has certainly improved significantly - but you are still talking fractional improvements on something that is already a small proportion of the launch vehicle weight.

lets think a little before posting arguments ok? and i wont mention the various other structural improvements they have made, that not only make the shuttle lighter but they make it more reliable and stronger.

 

[fsardis]

you find it easy to call someone a troll for posting arguments you dont like. i said before, that im not calling anyone names nor am i swearing at anyone. its a highly technical forum and we are having a discussion. if you can deal with it stop posting. i wasnt the one who bashed the forum and started calling other trolls for their opinion, on the other hand i have been called many thing up to now and im sure it will keep going. not that i mind, but it really brings the level of the discussion very low.

the moon isnt far away since to my knowledge the star wars programme was supposed to use laser weapons to take down intercontinental nuclear missiles since that type of missiles come out of the atmosphere.

 

[fsardis]

@armitage

yes i agree computers are a small fraction of the total weight. the rocket is after all a huge firework and as such its 90% fuel as you suggested, however its not the rocket that goes to moon. its a small pod that is launched from the space craft. thats where the improvements can happen to make it lighter and more reliable. to my knowledge the star wars programme did include the moon, i could be wrong though. im not too sure. still the stations on the moon for scientific experiments and what not are a rather good excuse arent they? especially if you realise that USA is paying rent to russia to use their space station.