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.
Well little-Acorn...everything I said makes sense...
1. why not leave a shuttle or two in space permanitly, rather than for it to waste away at a museum? I mean it's already built...already equipted...it could easily be converted to a space station or a vehicle to go to the moon or mars with...just leave it up in space attached to the station....
2. There is no resistance in space...no oxygen...so once something is in motion what's to stop it...except gravity, I guess...
It's about saving money and being practical...why build new space ships from scratch if we've already got 4 or 5?
I thought in space you don't need much fuel, since there's no friction...I thought once a object is in motion...nothing reacts against it so speed is constant...
But I guess you would need fuel to make quick little adjustments...
I think you're having me on, here. Anyway, friction is not the problem, gravity is. And that, I think, has to end the dialogue.
Conspiracy Theorist Convinces Neil Armstrong Moon Landing Was Faked
August 31, 2009 | Issue 45•36
A 1969 photo showing Armstrong, or anyone, really, standing on the surface of the "moon."
LEBANON, OHIO—Apollo 11 mission commander and famed astronaut Neil Armstrong shocked reporters at a press conference Monday, announcing he had been convinced that his historic first step on the moon was part of an elaborate hoax orchestrated by the United States government.
According to Armstrong, he was forced to reconsider every single detail of the monumental journey after watching a few persuasive YouTube videos, and reading several blog posts on conspiracy theorist Ralph Coleman's website, OmissionControl.org.
It's amazing how the CIA hired psychics to telepathically implant fake memories of astronaut's moon experiences in their heads.
When I was involved in black ops programs, I paid them to do the same thing to me; except my implant involved a desert island and a young Michelle Pfeiffer.... it was way better than being crammed in a capsule for 3 days with two other men and pooping into a bag.
Leave a shuttle in space perminatly, to be used as escape pod for space station...and then just glide back to earth...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
I think you're having me on, here. Anyway, friction is not the problem, gravity is. And that, I think, has to end the dialogue.
I concede your gravity arguement...yes, I guess you would need fuel to over come gravitational pull of the earth all the way to the moon...but the further you get away from earth...the less the gravity would be...and thus as you returned to earth...you could use the gravity to your advantage...
And again...leave a space shuttle or two in space...why waste them away in a museum?
They could be used for future missions or emergency escape pods incase the space station fails...
Nasa...if your reading this...leave a space shuttle in space perminatly for a future escape pod....
Certainly, but the Onion is an admitted satire source while Faux Snooze pretends to be credible.
Good point
It cracks me up when people here immediately think that The Onion is an actual news source - it's BLATANT satire - but that fact appears to be lost on many of the posters here
Here are some articles as to why we can't just point the space shuttle at the moon. It'll give you a little bit of information on the fuel needs alone to carry the extremely heavy shuttle to the moon.
You're arguing that a still photograph shows movement?
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.