Baj Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Ok..... but why haven't we been back there since 1972? There surely must have been technological advances between now and then which would be interesting to implement up there. Basically, the American public didn't believe that a continuation of the Apollo programme was a good use of resources. NASA was mandated to develop cheaper methods for space exploration, part of which was a reusable vehicle, and so the shuttle was born. Its a very interesting argument, in terms of scientific development, would we have been better off continuing our push for the stars, to the detriment of programmes such as Cassini and the shuttle, or was it better to concentrate on near earth exploration, barely breaking the surface of our atmosphere. An excellent book written by Stephen Baxter called 'Voyage' explores this 'alternative' history, where the USA puts a man on the moon in the 1980's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Ok..... but why haven't we been back there since 1972? There surely must have been technological advances between now and then which would be interesting to implement up there. because it costs a bloody fortune that's why. There are enough drains on the US finances without a multi-billion dollar jaunt into space again. Guantanamo bay doesn't pay for itself, you know. Oh, and no other nation has both the expertise and finances to perform such a mission. Russia has enough problems launching fireworks, let alone moon shots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baj Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 because it costs a bloody fortune that's why. There are enough drains on the US finances without a multi-billion dollar jaunt into space again. Guantanamo bay doesn't pay for itself, you know. Oh, and no other nation has both the expertise and finances to perform such a mission. Russia has enough problems launching fireworks, let alone moon shots. China do, easily. In fact, whilst we're on the subject of Stephen Baxter books, Moonseed is an excellent book where China have colonised the moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Ok..... but why haven't we been back there since 1972? There surely must have been technological advances between now and then which would be interesting to implement up there. we dont need to go back...we have machine and probes to do the work for us..like in many walks of life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 China do, easily. In fact, whilst we're on the subject of Stephen Baxter books, Moonseed is an excellent book where China have colonised the moon. I'm doubtful of the expertise level of China to be honest. They can't even mine coal safely but to them lives are cheap. I would expect a much higher casualty rate than the US and Russia/USSR put together if they launched a moon programme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 (edited) And the reason why humans haven't been back to the Moon in the intervening years is because there hasn't been sufficient reason to do so. In the 1960's, there was the political will to make the journey. Technically, it wasn't possible to do it when announced by Kennedy. But he gave the U.S. scientific, engineering and industrial sectors a 9 year proving time, and they just came through with months to spare. It cost the U.S. billions of dollars, which many people of the time said should have been spent elsewhere, and possibly they were right. But it gave the U.S. an enormous technical and political advantage over the rest of the world, a reputation which still holds true today. So I consider the moon landings quite good value. By the time the later missions came in, the 10 minute attention span that exists in the average U.S. citizen [i'm joking, of course] kicked in, and public opinion took the political will, and the remaining money, away. Reducing the programme by 3 missions was quite stupid really IMO, as it had all largely been paid for by then. It's a tribute to the design and strategy of the original Apollo programme that the recently announced lunar venture resembles the Apollo one in many ways. They found that NASA had got it right the first time around. Edited 21 July, 2009 by St Landrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baj Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 I'm doubtful of the expertise level of China to be honest. They can't even mine coal safely but to them lives are cheap. I would expect a much higher casualty rate than the US and Russia/USSR put together if they launched a moon programme. China have already launched their on lunar module and they are looking to put a man on the moon within 15 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Mars is the next bad boy to have a gander at Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Ok..... but why haven't we been back there since 1972? There surely must have been technological advances between now and then which would be interesting to implement up there. There's bugger all there of any scientific value or significance. There is no justification spending billions on sending anyone back to collect more rocks/dust, of which we have plenty, or take photos of old space junk left by previous missions just to justify said missions. I happened accept it and move on. ](*,) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 we dont need to go back...we have machine and probes to do the work for us..like in many walks of life It's the old Robot V Human debate again. As I mentioned before, and the people ITK did so at the time, a Robot is not qualified to tell the difference between what is a significant sample to return to Earth with, and what is just a rock that weighs a lot. And there are plenty other reasons to send a human, if only to prove that humans can be made safe in space. Besides, as also mentioned before, the learning curve that the U.S. went under in the technological, scientific and industrial sectors was incredible. The entire space programmes gave the world everyday 99% fault free design engineering and technology. It's why, for example, such complex units as computer hardware plod on day after day uncomplaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 either way people who think that the moon landing, JFK, dianna, 9/11 conspiracy theorists are all clearly mental and lack something in their lives Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 BTW, for those that do 'believe', the LRO has been taking detailed pictures of the Moons surface and has returned some neat images of junk we left on the moon, including a footpath between the landing vehicle and scientific equipment http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html Why would there be a footpath - certainly one so pronounced - when all the pictures show the astronauts 'bouncing' in their reduced gravity gait? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 And the reason why humans haven't been back to the Moon in the intervening years is because there hasn't been sufficient reason to do so. They could go and clean up the rubbish they left. Fcking litter louts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baj Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 I'm guessing they didnt jump whilst handling scientific instruments............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 I'm guessing they didnt jump whilst handling scientific instruments............... Just dragged their feet instead. Oh, and completely forgot about the principle that the shortest distance between two objects is a straight line Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Just dragged their feet instead. if they bounced when not carrying anything...could they not bounce as much when carry something..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 And of course.....the lunar buggy didn't jump!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 either way people who think that the moon landing, JFK, dianna, 9/11 conspiracy theorists are all clearly mental and lack something in their lives Moon Landing = fake JFK = true Diana = true 9/11 = fake Vietnam = true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 And of course.....the lunar buggy didn't jump!!!!!!!!!!!! Or go in straight lines!! However, the annotation on the picture clearly states astronaut FOOTpath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baj Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Just dragged their feet instead. Oh, and completely forgot about the principle that the shortest distance between two objects is a straight line Many house sized craters where you live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Or go in straight lines!! However, the annotation on the picture clearly states astronaut FOOTpath why would they go in straight lines..? is there roads and a highway code up there..? also, im sure we cant see smaller rocks and boulders that might well be in the way of a "straight line" path Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 why would they go in straight lines..? is there roads and a highway code up there..? also, im sure we cant see smaller rocks and boulders that might well be in the way of a "straight line" path If it is a FOOTpath, they would take the shortest path surely? We can't see the smaller rocks because there aren't any! We can see the Lunar module quite clearly and it isn't exactly the size of a house is it? If it's supposed to be the buggy tracks, I would expect to see parallel lines, unless of course it was really a motorbike with two wheels! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Or go in straight lines!! However, the annotation on the picture clearly states astronaut FOOTpath Did you not own a pair of moon boots back in the 80's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 either way people who think that the moon landing, JFK, dianna, 9/11 conspiracy theorists are all clearly mental and lack something in their lives On the flipside of that though delldays, it could be said that anybody who just blindly believes the BS they are spoon-fed without questioning it and doing their own research, and who dismiss others whose views don't match their own as 'clearly mental and lacking something in their lives' is just a sheep who is incapable of thinking for themselves and feels the need to apply stereotypes to others in order to maintain a false air of superiority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 If it is a FOOTpath, they would take the shortest path surely? We can't see the smaller rocks because there aren't any! We can see the Lunar module quite clearly and it isn't exactly the size of a house is it? If it's supposed to be the buggy tracks, I would expect to see parallel lines, unless of course it was really a motorbike with two wheels! maybr they have..? like a road the snakes through the country side..why is it not dead straight..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 On the flipside of that though delldays, it could be said that anybody who just blindly believes the BS they are spoon-fed without questioning it and doing their own research, and who dismiss others whose views don't match their own as 'clearly mental and lacking something in their lives' is just a sheep who is incapable of thinking for themselves and feels the need to apply stereotypes to others in order to maintain a false air of superiority. how is that a flip side.. I think the sheep are the nutjobs who are conspiracy theorist where some loser will call a theory and the sheep will follow..many with anti US views.. do the conspiracy theorists own the monopoly on looking into the evidence..? which s what you put across Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 maybr they have..? like a road the snakes through the country side..why is it not dead straight..? Lol. Their 'mission' was to leave scientific equipment on the moon, which was going to get no interference from anyone or anything EVER. The biggest question I have is WHY did they feel the need to travel over 200 metres away from the Antaris module to set this up? Why, if the distance was so important to them did they travel in such a circuitous route heading at one point BETWEEN two craters? Surely if they had to travel away from the module to set up the equipment they would have headed directly WEST which [from the picture] appears to have a completely clear path? If they didn't need to travel - and I'm pretty sure that the availability of oxygen in the oxygen less atmosphere would have an influence - why didn't they set up the equipment right there where they landed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 We can't see the smaller rocks because there aren't any! We can see the Lunar module quite clearly and it isn't exactly the size of a house is it? QUOTE] er yes it is actually...... from wiki: Height: 20.9 ft 6.37 m Diameter: 14 ft 4.27 m Judging by the scale bar the larger crater of the pair directly above the word 'footpath' and bisected by the astronauts footpath is about 10-12m diameter, so it is quite conceivable that there are plenty of boulders that can't be seen in the photo that would need to be walked/bounced/driven around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 We can't see the smaller rocks because there aren't any! We can see the Lunar module quite clearly and it isn't exactly the size of a house is it? er yes it is actually...... from wiki: Height: 20.9 ft 6.37 m Diameter: 14 ft 4.27 m Judging by the scale bar the larger crater of the pair directly above the word 'footpath' and bisected by the astronauts footpath is about 10-12m diameter, so it is quite conceivable that there are plenty of boulders that can't be seen in the photo that would need to be walked/bounced/driven around Not if they headed due West from the module Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 We can't see the smaller rocks because there aren't any! We can see the Lunar module quite clearly and it isn't exactly the size of a house is it? er yes it is actually...... from wiki: Height: 20.9 ft 6.37 m Diameter: 14 ft 4.27 m Judging by the scale bar the larger crater of the pair directly above the word 'footpath' and bisected by the astronauts footpath is about 10-12m diameter, so it is quite conceivable that there are plenty of boulders that can't be seen in the photo that would need to be walked/bounced/driven around in your face WSS.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 in your face WSS.... Not if they headed due West from the module So, the simple question is, why did they go that way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 So, the simple question is, why did they go that way? who knows... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 who knows... Do you think it makes sense to travel all that way - all the while using up precious oxygen - if they didn't have to? If they did have to, surely the reason why would be well documented wouldn't it? Therefore, 'someone' knows Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Do you think it makes sense to travel all that way - all the while using up precious oxygen - if they didn't have to? If they did have to, surely the reason why would be well documented wouldn't it? Therefore, 'someone' knows imsure someone nows..maybe av a look on the NASA website.. mabe it did not go 100% to plan that day and they did not land the module in the exact location and the instruments hadto be placed in an exact location...we will never know. IF, you are using this as a suggestion that it was faked up then it is pretty weak IMO.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 The biggest question I have is WHY did they feel the need to travel over 200 metres away from the Antaris module to set this up? Wouldn't they have needed to site it a little distance away so it didn't get knocked over/covered in dust when their spaceship took off? Also you are talking about 200 metres as if it's a 10 mile trek. That's no distance at all. Maybe that was the closest flat spot they could find? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Wouldn't they have needed to site it a little distance away so it didn't get knocked over/covered in dust when their spaceship took off? Also you are talking about 200 metres as if it's a 10 mile trek. That's no distance at all. Maybe that was the closest flat spot they could find? good point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 imsure someone nows..maybe av a look on the NASA website.. mabe it did not go 100% to plan that day and they did not land the module in the exact location and the instruments hadto be placed in an exact location...we will never know. IF, you are using this as a suggestion that it was faked up then it is pretty weak IMO.. Surely all these things will mean that we will know? If you're using this photo to prove unequivocally - despite not knowing any of the answers to the questions that I have posed - then I would suggest your evidence is also pretty weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Surely all these things will mean that we will know? If you're using this photo to prove unequivocally - despite not knowing any of the answers to the questions that I have posed - then I would suggest your evidence is also pretty weak. nope..this below sums up why to me it all happened.. it is not a fake..do you not think the russians, who at the time wanted to wipe the yanks off of the face of the earth, who were in the race to get to the moon first would have spilt the beans if it was fake..? they (along with us) tracked the whole mission using radio telescopes...the radio waves were being tracked from the rocket/shuttle and using the doppler effect it could determin the position within something like 10 meters... there is no way the russians at the time or even now, would have kept quiet off all the fake photos that may or may not exist....you cant fake the laws of physics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 how is that a flip side.. I think the sheep are the nutjobs who are conspiracy theorist where some loser will call a theory and the sheep will follow..many with anti US views.. do the conspiracy theorists own the monopoly on looking into the evidence..? which s what you put across OK, fair enough. I think when you mention the 'nutjob sonspiracy theorists' (still a shocking prejudice IMO as I have never yet met anyone who fits that sterotype) you are referring to a very small minority. You are correct of course when you say that people on either side of the coin are capable of doing their own research. It just angers me when I see people who have absolutely no knowledge on a particular subject ridiculing and dismissing those who actually investigate for themselves because their 'nutjob' theories do not fit in with their own world view and so therefore must be wrong. I'd just like to add that I wasn't specifically casting you in that category. It was more of a general statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Surely all these things will mean that we will know? If you're using this photo to prove unequivocally - despite not knowing any of the answers to the questions that I have posed - then I would suggest your evidence is also pretty weak. FFS.........what about the other missions, have you read the whole thread, are you saying they were all faked!!!.......wake up and smell the coffee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesaint sfc Posted 21 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Is the moon made of cheese? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Wouldn't they have needed to site it a little distance away so it didn't get knocked over/covered in dust when their spaceship took off? Also you are talking about 200 metres as if it's a 10 mile trek. That's no distance at all. Maybe that was the closest flat spot they could find? I agree, and have stated if they needed to site the equipment away from their spaceship, did it have to be 200m away? I also agree that 200m is not that far - especially if they can bounce approx 10m with every step. However, this poses another question, why the need for a lunar buggy to travel such a short distance in the first place? Finally, if the dust created from the spaceship as it lifted off was going to be so destructive, why can we clearly see the 'footpath' around the Antaris module in the picture - assuming the spacecraft took off from that approx location, wouldn't that footpath have been covered by the same dust that would have covered the equipment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 FFS.........what about the other missions, have you read the whole thread, are you saying they were all faked!!!.......wake up and smell the coffee. Baj presented what is apparently a recent picture, showing evidence that man has been on the moon. For me, this picture has thrown up some questions which don't add up. If you have the answers to the questions I will happily listen to them and read the sources you quote from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 wss..have a look here to see if you get answers http://www.nasa.gov/home/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baj Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 WSS, if we didn't think you were acting as a troll on this thread, we'd probably give your questions some serious answers like a) you'd need to position the equipment that far away to avoid electonic interference from the LM equipment, or b) the amount of thrust required to lift the LM back to the orbiter is minimal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingeletiss Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Baj presented what is apparently a recent picture, showing evidence that man has been on the moon. For me, this picture has thrown up some questions which don't add up. If you have the answers to the questions I will happily listen to them and read the sources you quote from. The only reason things don't add up, is that you are looking for reasons why they don't add up. You are picking holes, where no holes exist........but hey ho, if that's how you view life, then who are we to change you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
west_oz_saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Here is one from the left field, Ben Elton said in his book Stark that the moon had been sold to a consortium of big business, unlikely but stranger things have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMike Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 conspiracy theories make me laugh. probably started by some stoned American looking for attention. There is more evidence than not that man has been to the moon, including man himself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 wss..have a look here to see if you get answers http://www.nasa.gov/home/index.html Sadly not It now appears - from reading the site - that those pictures were taken in 'real time', ie when the astronauts were on the moon. That footpath appears to be quite well worn - indicating a lot of movement to and from the scientific equipment [which if the scale from the other pictures on the site is true, would be about human sized] - so where are the astronauts? If we can see the equipment, surely we should be able to see the astronauts? Or is it just coincidence that the photographs exist of the lunar module in orbit, then landing, then only another one after the astronauts have all packed up and gone in the module again! Also, did they take the 'buggy' home with them? If not, where is it, because it isn't in the picture. Perhaps they drove it away from the module so as not to interfere with the takeoff, so where are the corresponding tracks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Sadly not It now appears - from reading the site - that those pictures were taken in 'real time', ie when the astronauts were on the moon. No they weren't: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now