Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll start with this...Governments and their 'black opts' have always depended on the masses have such simpliced mindsets as demonstrated by the mindset 'See, Russia didn't do this, so America couldn't of done that'.....
It's black ops, not black opts
Quote:
I also know back then, The Soviet Union had no issue with eliminating anyone (citizen, scientist or not) who could, or would jepordize such an agreement...
And you know this how? And what agreement is that, source please?
Quote:
So what I'm saying knowing what we know about how Governments operate, and KGB, CIA and other issue settles...I'm not so sure if your premise ends the 'x' factor...
Guess India is in on this secret plot too...
Indian satellite confirmed US moon landing: scientist
Tires and all....how did this thing fit inside the lander?
And what powered it?
Solar power?
That things kicken up dirt...I've never seen a solar powered vehicle on earth with that kind of torque...
I'm just saying...with this new NASA orbiter circling the moon...i would like to see evidence of all the hardware we left up there...
The lunar buggy (kunar rover) was hinged so it could be folded up on the LM (Lunar Module). The LM was attached to the Apollo capsule. Once they were in orbit arund the Moon, the LM detached for the trip to the lunar surface.
The lunar buggy (a play on the popular term "dune buggy") did not run on solar power. It used batteries.
Yes, they could kick up the dust pretty well. The reason for the "torque" is because the Moon's gravity is less than here on Earth. It just didn't take much effort to get the vehicle to move right along. The only risk was that the batteries would only last for a limited amount of time, so it was important not to travel too far from the LM. Still, they were able to travel farther than they could on foot. The amount of time the astronauts could remain on the lunar surface was also limited because of the amount of air they could take with them. In other words, they had to have enough time to be able to get back to the orbiting command module.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space
It would take 'faith' for me to believe those specs are original luner landing equiptment...
NASA's mistake was not coming out with such images in the 80's, long before digital technology was widely known...where even I could take a photo of the moon, and with the cheap 'effects' software I have, could do some pretty amazing things...
I think you've been watching too many "Faked Lunar Landing" conspiiracy programs or websites. Sure, there's software today that can create some impressive effects. On the other hand, if they actually went to the Moon, then what point would there be to "fake" such a landing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space
Could they not simply have pointed one of the shuttles in that direction?
Like Buck Rogers....
Why were none of the shuttles ever sent to the moon, or simply to orbit it...33-69 hours?
The shuttles have orbited the earth for longer than that...
And in space, I hear you don't need much fuel, cause there's no resistance...
Is there something else preventing man from going back to the moon, other than the 'budget' excuse....?
Shuttles were never designed for anything other than low Earth altitudes which is why none have sent to the Moon. The fuel required to launch something as large and heavy as a space shuttle to the Moon would require an enormous amount of fuel for the rockets currently available. The lift-off fuel would have to be enough to enable the shuttle to break free of the gravitational pull of the Earth. The Apollo missions were light enough to launch trips to the Moon.
Unfortunately, the main reason why we are not going back to the Moon any time soon, is not so much because of budget, but rather because of policy established by the federal administration. A lot of focus had been on the space stations and the shuttles. In addition, a lot of interest had been focused on getting a manned mission to Mars. As such, step by step goals were set up by the administration to first master landing on asteroids, then the Martian moons, then orbiting Mars, and finally a Martian landing if everything leading up to it has been successful.
While NASA doesn't have any objections to asteroid landings, their view, as well as the views of many scientists, are that the Moon would still be an ideal location for practice, testing potential habitats, shielding, etc., ultimately leading up to a trip to Mars. If NASA and scientists can make a strong enough case to return to the Moon any time soon, then it's possible the administration could change the goals. The Moon is a lot closer to use for testing equipment.
The USSR never uttered one word nor published one paper saying America was pulling a fast one over on the planet Earth.
Why was that?
Even a semi-intelligent person would agree that the USSR would have brought to the world's attention the fact that the United States was publicizing something phony.
What makes you think the USSR would have been so quick to globally 'rat' out the United States if, in fact, they staged landings?
The societ space program was primarily classified; meaning they wouldn't want to draw unnecessary attention that something of that magnitude would create.
Also, the USA was technicially capable of pulling something like this off and would have probably been nearly impossible to prove/disprove (I'm talking late 60's, early 70's landings; not present day).
What makes you think the USSR would have been so quick to globally 'rat' out the United States if, in fact, they staged landings?
The societ space program was primarily classified; meaning they wouldn't want to draw unnecessary attention that something of that magnitude would create.
WHAT?
The Russians having proof that America filmed the moon landings on a set in Hollywood would have compromised the security of the Russian space program?
Now that makes a lot of sense....
You think the Russians would have given up the chance to embarrass the United States in front of the whole world?
The lunar buggy (kunar rover) was hinged so it could be folded up on the LM (Lunar Module). The LM was attached to the Apollo capsule. Once they were in orbit arund the Moon, the LM detached for the trip to the lunar surface.
The lunar buggy (a play on the popular term "dune buggy") did not run on solar power. It used batteries.
Yes, they could kick up the dust pretty well. The reason for the "torque" is because the Moon's gravity is less than here on Earth. It just didn't take much effort to get the vehicle to move right along. The only risk was that the batteries would only last for a limited amount of time, so it was important not to travel too far from the LM. Still, they were able to travel farther than they could on foot. The amount of time the astronauts could remain on the lunar surface was also limited because of the amount of air they could take with them. In other words, they had to have enough time to be able to get back to the orbiting command module.
I think you've been watching too many "Faked Lunar Landing" conspiiracy programs or websites. Sure, there's software today that can create some impressive effects. On the other hand, if they actually went to the Moon, then what point would there be to "fake" such a landing?
Shuttles were never designed for anything other than low Earth altitudes which is why none have sent to the Moon. The fuel required to launch something as large and heavy as a space shuttle to the Moon would require an enormous amount of fuel for the rockets currently available. The lift-off fuel would have to be enough to enable the shuttle to break free of the gravitational pull of the Earth. The Apollo missions were light enough to launch trips to the Moon.
Unfortunately, the main reason why we are not going back to the Moon any time soon, is not so much because of budget, but rather because of policy established by the federal administration. A lot of focus had been on the space stations and the shuttles. In addition, a lot of interest had been focused on getting a manned mission to Mars. As such, step by step goals were set up by the administration to first master landing on asteroids, then the Martian moons, then orbiting Mars, and finally a Martian landing if everything leading up to it has been successful.
While NASA doesn't have any objections to asteroid landings, their view, as well as the views of many scientists, are that the Moon would still be an ideal location for practice, testing potential habitats, shielding, etc., ultimately leading up to a trip to Mars.
If NASA and scientists can make a strong enough case to return to the Moon any time soon, then it's possible the administration could change the goals. The Moon is a lot closer to use for testing equipment.
If only Kennedy had said 'Let's go to Mars, instead of 'lets go to the moon'....
Seems like back then with inferior (by todays standards) equiptment and production, we would of made the Mars mission happen....they designed and whipped up those crafts in no time...seems like today every 10 years, the President keeps kicking it another 10-15 years into the future...
They started from scratch back then and did more, and we're working with more, and do less...
Every other technological field has advanced prespectively, except manned missions to the moon...
And all we're told is 'budget budget'...but in that time have managed to run up how many trillions?
There's something more to this story NightBazzar....
We've got some of the brightest minds living today, with the best technology previously known to man, computers that can simulate and design crafts much more efficiant than the original lunar landers....with all this 'brain' power...you mean to tell me we're 'stumped'??
Does that sound right?
There is something else in this equation that we aren't being told...a true reason why we're not going there, vs a false made up generic reason that the public can easily accept...
Added note: Would the Van Allen radiation belt have something to do with that?
Could any human survive prolonged or short term mass bombardment of high charged radioactive particles, that would be akin to flying an airplane through a giant microwave oven?
Is that the manned deep space barrier that all space programs have hit, and is why they keep setting these future dates of possible manned missions?
To keep requesting funding for something that can never happen?
We've got some of the brightest minds living today, with the best technology previously known to man, computers that can simulate and design crafts much more efficiant than the original lunar landers....with all this 'brain' power...you mean to tell me we're 'stumped'??
Um.. several space probes have been sent to other planets in our solar system over the last few decades, if you haven't noticed.
6 manned lunar landings were enough to prove we could do it. It became old news already by 1972.
Um.. several space probes have been sent to other planets in our solar system over the last few decades, if you haven't noticed.
6 manned lunar landings were enough to prove we could do it. It became old news already by 1972.
Your innocent...so i'll be easy....just read and learn please...pull up a chair and listen...
Anyways...as I was saying...
Has anyone heard of the concept of 'Perpetual funding?'
Requesting funds for something that will never, can't ever occur, but none the less this 'funding' feeds industry giants, corporations, governments, and bottom line, peoples bank accounts...
If I keeps requesting money for 'A'...knowing 'A' can never occur...than what is that?
And if I just keep conviently setting the date back 10-20 years, more people who wanted 'A' to happen keep dying off...so in the end it wouldn't have mattered if we did 'A' or not...cause half the people who heard the promise will be dead...and then they can set it back another 20 years once again, while requesting more funds...
(And by the way bigcitydreamer, I'm not talking about unmanned spacecraft)
We've got some of the brightest minds living today, with the best technology previously known to man, computers that can simulate and design crafts much more efficiant than the original lunar landers....with all this 'brain' power...you mean to tell me we're 'stumped'??
Does that sound right?
There is something else in this equation that we aren't being told...a true reason why we're not going there, vs a false made up generic reason that the public can easily accept...
Added note: Would the Van Allen radiation belt have something to do with that?
Could any human survive prolonged or short term mass bombardment of high charged radioactive particles, that would be akin to flying an airplane through a giant microwave oven?
Is that the manned deep space barrier that all space programs have hit, and is why they keep setting these future dates of possible manned missions?
To keep requesting funding for something that can never happen?
So what are you trying to say with this thread? That no one ever landed on the Moon? That deep space travel is impossible? Manned deep space missions are risky because of radiation. So are long periods of weightlessness. There are possible solutions.
To determine what the best solutions are, we need the data of how intense such hazards are. The Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity), which is on its way to Mars, is looking at the radiation conditions for deep space missions, by locating the instrumentation deep inside the spacecraft to simulate what those conditions are if a human were to be aboard. We've used such detectors before, but this is the first time we've positioned them inside instead of being exposed to space. The instrumentation is called the Radiation Assessment Detector. The RAD in not only measuring conditions throughout the flight, but will also be measuring radiation levels on the surface of Mars as well. The purpose of the RAD is to help determine what kind of shielding would be needed for a long flight to Mars. It's one thing traveling to the Moon, which is relatively close. It's another thing to travel to Mars which could about 3 years for a round-trip journey.
Among other things,
1. We need to understand what kind of shielding would be necessary for the spacecraft. If the shielding is too thick, that would add weight which means more fuel would be necessary for lift off. We'll also need to know what kind of protective shielding will be needed for a Martian habitat as well as suits for outside excursions.
2. We need to develop a system to simulate gravity. That could be done by part of the craft rotating. How large would it have to be to simulate the gravity of Earth or Mars?
3. We need to develop a propulsion system that can travel much faster than current spacecrafts do to reduce travel time.
4. We need to develop ways astronauts can produce their own food supply, extract water, and produce air.
The thing is that traveling to other bodies in space isn't easy. We also can't compare how things were during the manned lunar missions 40 years ago. Even a delay of just a single year can mean going over budget estimations. One way around that is by greater involvement of private enterprise. But that takes time to develop and test systems to be sure they work effectively and safely.
I would agree with you that during the Kennedy administration, cost wasn't the issue. The task was to get the job done within the specified period of time. Keep in mind too that Kennedy was a very enthusiastic, supportive and charismatic president. Successive administrations have had other ideas of what direction manned space programs should take, which literally bypass any Moon landings. It's also worth noting that US manned space flights were put on hold after the disasters of two space shuttles. At the present time, the space shuttle program has been completely discontinued with no other spacecrafts available to replace them for some time. To continue sending Americans into space, we have to rely on hitching rides with the Russians until we can develop the next generation of spacecrafts.
What would you suggest to speed things up? Perhaps robotics is the way to go for now to continue blazing the trail. It's a lot cheaper than sending people, but eventually, the time will come to send people.
Um something tells me that if Nasa released orbiter images of the lunar landing sites, you would just call them photoshoped anyway. Face it. You've already made up your mind and no amount of proof is going to satisfy you short of getting in a rocket and going to see the lunar sites first hand. Mythbusters did an entire episode dedicated to this single topic about three years ago and proved without a doubt that we went to the moon. They simulated lunar gravity in zero G airplanes then matched them to the Nasa footage, had access to Nasa facilities, and even shot a laser to the lunar reflector left by Apollo 15 (it bounces back and you can see a clear spike on the computer monitor) amongst other things. However, I doubt it'll convince you.
To quote the show, "We went there. We did that. Get over it."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
