BR715-A1-30 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 922 times:
IMHO, It would be useless to send men back to the moon. We have robots who could do the same job (Maybe even better) and we wouldn't have to worry about losing americans. If the robot conks on the moon, or the spacecraft doesn't make it, they can rip up the flight plan and walk out like nothing happened. Apollo 13 was a different story, but if there had been robots on that flight, they would have heard about the oxygen tanks and said... "Oh well, Sh*t Happens" and walked out of the MOCR with cigarettes hanging out of their mouth.
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 904 times:
Of course we went there i'm sick and tired of all this conspiracy garbage! As for why should we go back there? Well the moon could be useful as a stepping stone to Mars. Mankind will go to Mars in the fairly near future and the moon could possibly be used as a launching platform. Plus i believe the moon contains rocks which have a certain gas called Helium 3- i remember Jack Schmitt talking about it. This can be useful to make fuels. I don't think going back there is a waste of money at all.
Positive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 894 times:
Plus i think the Japanese want to build a holiday resort on the moon in the future too. It would be nice to take a nice relaxing holiday on the moon. Oh and i forgot to mention the moon- especially the dark side is an excellent location for deep space astronomy because of 0 light pollution.
National_757 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 892 times:
There are those that say America did not land on the moon. They have some very good supporting documents and photos but we will never know the truth.
HKGSpotter, please check out this website regarding the moon landing. This scientist knows what he is talking about, and he analyzed EVERY point the conspiracy losers brought up and proved them all wrong.
EGGD From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2001, 12426 posts, RR: 40 Reply 10, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 878 times:
The explanations given AGAINST landing on the moon were absolutely hopeless, with a little time and research even I could find more convincing information. The problem is these people who try to prove the moon landings never happened show their ideas to the average joe-blow who doesn't know screw all, so he just takes it in because at a glance (and the way the information is presented) it looks like it makes sense..
But lets not stray too far off topic here, We should celebrate the awesome achievements made by those astronauts!!! Still incredible today that humans have stepped on another world than our own.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 12713 posts, RR: 80 Reply 12, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 865 times:
Robots could never replace a human explorer, look at the article again, compare the amount and diversity of samples collected and compare to what the Soviets brought back from their unmanned missions. Especially from Apollos 15, 16 and 17, the definitive exploration missions.
Why go to the Moon?
Why do anything? Invent anything? Explore anything?
Just sit back fat and happy and consume instead, like the Romans ended up doing.
Aviatsiya From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 13, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 861 times:
Sorry, but there is only one Moonwalk which I will concur actually happened, and it televised on 16 May 1983.
Sorry, but your "expert" has failed to prove anything in terms of the materials which the spacecraft were made from. To prove that man has been to the moon and back, why doesn't NASA construct the original Apollo 11 program, IDENTICAL to that in 1969. And I mean identical in terms of the materials used to construct the various crafts, because it has been said that many of the materials used in the re-entry craft would have burned up on re-entry into the Earths atmosphere, resulting in the death of those on board.
Alessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 857 times:
I think the 13th man on the moon will be Chinese, they have the will to go there. As for these who don´t think 12 US citizens have been on the moon,
I have a question, if this was a "Hollywood" stunt, don´t you think the Russians and Chinese would love to prove that it was fake and a capitalist lie?
Remember that this took place during the Vietnam war and the people in Beijing and Moscow wasn´t too friendly with Washington DC....
GDB From United Kingdom, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 12713 posts, RR: 80 Reply 16, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 846 times:
This thread is to commemorate Apollo, not for those with seemingly huge deficits in knowledge and common-sense to indulge their paranoid, childish beliefs.
And if it WAS a fake, they would only have faked Apollo 11, (and explain the near disaster of 13? you cannot? thought so), if you are unable to get your head around that, much less any of the technical stuff, well I'm surprised you can even switch on a computer much less operate it.
Those who think it was filmed on a film set, clearly are suffering from watching too many real bad movies.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 17, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 845 times:
Humankind NEEDS to continue manned space exploration.
We will have a pressing need to settle other worlds in the not too distant future. Population pressure, natural disasters, polution, exhaustion of natural resources all lead to an inexorable time when we either move to other worlds or die out.
If we (like some want because they think manned space exploration is a waste of money) abandon manned missions in space, we loose the knowledge needed to mound such missions and will never get to the point where we can successfully colonise space and other planets.
I fear it may already be too late. At this time we could not land another man on the moon. The technology needed no longer exists. The USA cannot build another Saturn rocket and nothing better has been created in 30 years. The USSR has collapsed, its knowledge of space exploration disappearing with it.
Politicians think in 4 year cycles, any program that takes longer to give a result that increases their chances of being reelected will not get funding.
At the current level of technology and spending (even if the latter is enormously increased but see above) a major manned exploration program would take 15-20 years to reach the moon, 30-50 years to reach Mars.
I fear that in a few years time, that target Mars (the first viable colony project) will have slipped to 100 years away.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 12713 posts, RR: 80 Reply 18, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 831 times:
It would certainly be very pricey and difficult to replicate what Apollo did, for a start Saturn V production tolling was cut up.
But you would not want to do it that way in any case.
JFK wanted a landing by 1968, an end for his hoped for 2nd term, and maybe a boost for RFK in '68.
So the original NASA plan, to use a huge (much larger than Saturn V) NOVA rocket to do a direct ascent mode, putting 60 tons of Lander and Command Module directly on the Moon was axed at an early stage.
Difficult, expensive, fraught with potential operational problems and unlikely to do it by the end of the 60's.
So NASA went with Lunar Orbit Rendevous, splitting the Lander and Command Module, and able to use a smaller rocket.
The almost forgotten Gemini Programme proved you could perform complex docking operations in space.
The same still applies now, with Shuttle and conventional rockets plus a space station, you can put the craft together in orbit. You don't need a huge booster to get to the Moon from Earth orbit.
As for Mars, the Robert Zubrin plan looks very do-able and affordable, in the spirit of Apollo you do what you need to get there and nothing else.
Previous Mars proposals have been full of exotic technology, huge spacecraft, every bit of the space industry trying to get their pet project on board. Unreal and unaffordable.
It needs political will to do it, nothing else.
This idea that Apollo damaged the US economy is rubbish, if anything did in the 60's it was Vietnam, the budgets for the two don't compare, by the late 60's the US was spending more in Vietnam in a year than it did on the whole of Apollo.
At least Apollo gave great technological benefits, including a real boost to computer technology, look what that industry has done for the USA.
So I hope the Chinese do go for a manned programme, it could get some fingers out of some US political backsides.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 19, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 824 times:
Space access needs to be economically viable (and allowed).
As long as space exploration and exploitation depends on government funding and government controlled institutions (at least at the manned level) no large scale projects will happen again.
What is really needed is a means of making space colonies self-sufficient economically (in other words, at the very least cost-neutral).
And I mean identical in terms of the materials used to construct the various crafts, because it has been said that many of the materials used in the re-entry craft would have burned up on re-entry into the Earths atmosphere, resulting in the death of those on board.
It has been said by who?
The ONLY way the moon missions could have been faked is if NASA launched an identicle Saturn V, took a ship to the moon, brought it back and made it re-enter the atmosphere. The Russians and others are no fools. They were tracking the missions. Given that NASA would have to basically complete an entire Apollo mission in order to "fake it", what's the point? Especially considering there's no way computers could complete the mission in place of humans.
National_757 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (10 years 5 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 815 times:
Very good points 777236ER, but it doesn't matter how many different websites or how many paragraphs you or anyone else writes, Aviatsiya is still going to choose to believe the conspiracy losers over actual fact. It's a darn shame too because landing on the moon was mankind's greatest accomplishment to date IMO.