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.
It would take 'faith' for me to believe those specs are original luner landing equiptment...
It would take 'faith' for me to believe that their not digitally altered or created images...
Because all I see is arrows pointing towards shadows and dots...(yes, I know objects create shadows)...
But there's not enough distinction in the objects for me to know either way what those objects are...
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...
NASA hurt it'self by only coming up with these images after surmounting pressure to do so....
Kind of the 'Ok they want proof, give them proof!' scenerio....
The reputation of to many, to much, is at stake, for them not to produce 'something'...
Also I learned 4 Russian probes reached the surface before Armstrong did...and took about 33 hours to get there...
Russia had the rocket power to get there, but choose not to...I guess I'd have to research their space history to figure out why...
But when doing such research, one is always at the mercy of seeing, hearing, learning, only what 'the government' wants you to...
And no Government will ever willingly make it'self look bad.
Like someone writing a auto-biography on themselves...there going to 'clean up' alot...and only disclose things that are favorible...
Also it took apollo around 65-69 hours to get there...
Took the Russian probes around 33 hours....
33-69 hours of seperation in 40 years?
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....?
well you need a ship that unlike the shuttle design is made to go beyond LEO the shuttle programs was a success in geting a reuseable space craft to carry a payload in it's cargo and also be a scinece lab and home to the astronuaghts to conduct the experiments while the apollo was made to go to the moon and both projects getting a budget would of been impossible so we had to choose and we choose the shuttle and now need a modren rocket to get us there but the keep cutting funding since a NASA has a budget that can be cut while other deparments are harder to make massive funding cuts.
The Shuttle was never made to go beyond LEO and was not even designed to go on a moon mission.
I am not going to say that you are stupid. But you are posting some very, very stupid things.
It looks like a tin can...and I don't see what's so difficult about building another one of superior quality...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTOlover
well you need a ship that unlike the shuttle design is made to go beyond LEO the shuttle programs was a success in geting a reuseable space craft to carry a payload in it's cargo and also be a scinece lab and home to the astronuaghts to conduct the experiments while the apollo was made to go to the moon and both projects getting a budget would of been impossible so we had to choose and we choose the shuttle and now need a modren rocket to get us there but the keep cutting funding since a NASA has a budget that can be cut while other deparments are harder to make massive funding cuts.
The Shuttle was never made to go beyond LEO and was not even designed to go on a moon mission.
Well can't they adapt it too?
Just point it to the moon...they'll be there in less than 2 1/2 days...
I mean it's a lot more comfortable than being squeezed up in a yugo sized capsual....
As far as engineering goes...since there's no air resistance in space...no friction...what's there to design other than pointing it in the direction of the moon?
I'm just asking cause I want to know...
I even have ideas on how to get small fighter size space craft into space without the whole launch pad drama...smaller, more effeciant sized space ships...like F-18 sized...
I even have ideas on how to get small fighter size space craft into space without the whole launch pad drama...smaller, more effeciant sized space ships...like F-18 sized...
It's not that hard...
Great, open up a new thread and get diarrhea of the fingertips in that one.
NASA is looking to award space technology grants...to people who are inovative, and who think outside the box, in order to keep their competitive edge...
Their not looking for people with no imagination...and who still think a long the lines of sending 1960's type tin cans into space...
They used the words 'Innovative'....meaning different...in other words they're encouraging thinkers...and people who ponder...cause that's how new concepts come into play and get developed...
Anyways...I don't even know why I'm sharing this with you, cause you'll probablly just beat me up over it...
NASA is looking to award space technology grants...to people who are inovative, and who think outside the box, in order to keep their competitive edge...
Their not looking for people with no imagination...and who still think a long the lines of sending 1960's type tin cans into space...
They used the wards 'Inovative'....meaning different...in other words they're encouraging thinkers...and people who ponder...cause that's how new concepts come into play and get developed...
Anyways...I don't even know why I'm sharing this with you, cause you'll probablly just beat me up over it...
NASA has a probe that is orbiting around the moon now...34 miles above the surface...
I'm tired of the excuses...i want proof that man was there...show me the flag or flags, show me the moon buggy, show me all the other stuff that was left behind...no more excuses with this new probe...
I mean if google map can zoom in on my home and car...then surely the technology has been out long enough for NASA equiptment to be able to zoom in on a space buggy left up there...
I've seen the Lunar lander before, or models of...and I wonder how a gigantic Jeep Cherokee dune buggy could fit inside that thing...
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...
And if Russia was the first into space, why did they or could they not, continue onto the moon?
Seeing as their rockets were just as advanced and powerful as Americas...
Scientist working with slide rulers could get us to the moon, but todays scientist cannot?
I believe we went ok, I just want some hard evidence...as in a photo of the hardware we left up there...
Umm ... there's plenty of evidence ... in the Smithsonian and the hundreds of pounds of moon rocks and photos and video that we took. And the rocks aren't much different looking because ... surprise surprise ... chemistry is chemistry in the known universe. Rocks form much in the same ways everywhere. The same elements exist all over the universe. There's no such thing as adamantium or some strange new unobtanium. Hydrogen is hydrogen, helium is helium, silicas are silicas, and gold is gold. All over the universe.
The LRV was battery powered. And if you think that it takes a lot of power to push hundreds of pounds of moon rock, astronaut, and equipment on a tiny battery and still be able to kick up dirt, remember that a small battery does not mean that it wasn't able to be powered. Remember that they didn't stay long, and that the moon has a tiny fraction of the gravity, so the hundreds of pounds turns into tens of pounds.
Russia didn't go to the moon because the N-1 rocket they developed for the purpose seemed prone to failure, and the first manned test launch killed the pilot. After that disaster, they neither had the political cohesion nor the funding to compete seriously with NASA. Soviet leadership was far more interested in developing the military and expanding the nuclear stockpile.
So your contention that their rockets were just as powerful as ours is right, but that doesn't mean they were capable of going to the moon. A doomed design that has political backing is just as good as a paper weight. A very expensive one.
It's not surprising there's skeptics out there who say they want physical evidence. We haven't been back to the moon because we lost the political will to keep going. Once we beat Russia there and we found that there's little scientific value (at the time anyway), we decided against going there again. We beat the Russians. That's all that mattered. The cost was too high as well to sustain that plus the Vietnam war costs. And by that time, the US economy was in shambles and the energy crisis made it plain that we couldn't just keep blasting people off into space, so we mothballed it.
I think it was a great and terrible mistake to stop going into space. It is my hope that China can announce that they are going to Mars in a manned mission and they do NOT want any help from the US. That will kick our asses out of lazy Tea Party kissing mode and into serious adult mode again.
cjg5, look at how simple the design of this thing is...
It's basically a hollow tin can...
Where's the billions in expense here?
I tin can with fuel inside...and we can't make more of these?
Come on, something isn't right...
This comment had absolutely NOTHING to do with what I was pointing out to you. YOU posed the question of how we could go from nothing to man on the moon in under a decade. I pointed out to you that rocket technology had been known to man for centuries, and that Nazi Germany started developing ideas and new technologies to utilize said old technology for space fairing vessels (though didn't get it quite right, and subsequently ran out of time to further develop it by the end of the war), and that even by marking the date from the end of the war, in 1945, to the date that man first landed on the moon, in 1969, was MORE than ten years, and didn't exactly come from nothing.
Furthermore, I pointed out to you that there was much more of an urgency for this to be done back then than there is today with the cold war and the space race in full swing.
I point these things out to you, based on your own comment, and then you sidestep all of them to tell me you think the rocket itself was of poor design, which had nothing to do with either your previous remark, or my answer to it.
(OT tidbit: Nazi Germany was the first to develop a LOT of new technologies, as well as the first to improve upon some old technologies (including medical technologies and medicines), that became widely in use world wide after the war, and many of those are still widely in use world wide to this very day. Evil as they were, they were also pretty darn brilliant when it came to technological and medical advancing).
Finally...a valid question I can answer...there is plenty of them...
Those are all Russian, and none of them are designed for a moon mission.
You said that we (the United States) have one. Where is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time and Space
Well can't they adapt it too?
No.
Spacecraft - ALL spacecraft - are purpose built. They are designed to perform very specific tasks. You can't just take something that was designed to deliver cargo into low earth orbit and "point it at the moon." It doesn't work that way.
It's like saying, "Can't you just point that Prius at the ocean and drive to Japan?" It won't work. Ever.
Those are all Russian, and none of them are designed for a moon mission.
You said that we (the United States) have one. Where is it?
No.
Spacecraft - ALL spacecraft - are purpose built. They are designed to perform very specific tasks. You can't just take something that was designed to deliver cargo into low earth orbit and "point it at the moon." It doesn't work that way.
It's like saying, "Can't you just point that Prius at the ocean and drive to Japan?" It won't work. Ever.
But lets just say if you did...what would happen?
Let's just say if you did just shove or skoot or thrust the shuttle towards the moon....it would be like going there in a Motorhome...vs a out house....
I'm not saying your wrong OK...but I need to know why you couldn't just fly a shuttle to the moon...
And then land it on the surface like a Harriar jump jet....
Why could we not build or modify the old shuttles to do that?
Also, form what you know...is there 'wind' in space...
I saw a Star Wars episode, where some of the crafts had 'sails'...they were either sails or solar sails or both.
Since there's so much raw radiation in space, is solar energy more efficient in space?
And I'll find some American rockets here in a bit...
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.
NASA awards space technology research fellowship grants...
