Weston Super Saint 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 I'm not acting as a troll, we have 19c that takes care of that! For me, this has thrown up some questions that I've never really thought about, and far from accepting the opinions from either side of the argument - although I am swaying towards the 'never went there side' - I would like to formulate my own opinions from the evidence of trusted sources. I am not technically savvy, but I would imagine that electrical interference would be interfering more than 200m away, if it were a factor at all, but I'm happy to accept that the distance is right. So the question still remains, why not head due West which in the picture appears to be a completely flat path, with the exception of some boulders which appear to be no more than 1 metre in diameter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dimond Geezer Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 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? They didn’t the photo is taken from the Apollo 14 mission, the buggies were used on missions 15, 16 & 17, the most it travelled from the LM was a little under 5miles (Apollo 17) 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? The LM is consists of 2 modules, the Descent Module and the Ascent Module. The Descent Module remains on the moons surface, the Ascent Module is mounted on top of this, some 3m or so above the moons surface. The blast from the Ascent Module would therefore be ‘taken’ by the top of the Descent Module, well above the moons surface and not causing a dust storm. Last post of the day so I'm done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 No they weren't: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html I've read that article three times now, and I'm confused.... "The LROC team anxiously awaited each image," said LROC principal investigator Mark Robinson of Arizona State University. "We were very interested in getting our first peek at the lunar module descent stages just for the thrill -- and to see how well the cameras had come into focus. Indeed, the images are fantastic and so is the focus." This bit led me to believe those pictures were in real time. So, did they take the lunar buggy back with them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 So, did they take the lunar buggy back with them? There wasn't a buggy on that mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Last post of the day so I'm done. Thanks. Although this is from Apollo 11 it is on the Apollo 14 article, and is used to show the scale, so I'm assuming they used an identical model.... So the bit that takes off is the top bit of the module - the grey square looking bits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 There wasn't a buggy on that mission. Cheers. Somebody else mentioned it was the buggy tracks. They seemed quite certain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scummer Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 I've read that article three times now, and I'm confused.... This bit led me to believe those pictures were in real time. The 'descent stages' are the bits of the spacecraft left behind. It's not the actual 'descent' of the craft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 (edited) I'm not acting as a troll, we have 19c that takes care of that! For me, this has thrown up some questions that I've never really thought about, and far from accepting the opinions from either side of the argument - although I am swaying towards the 'never went there side' - I would like to formulate my own opinions from the evidence of trusted sources. I am not technically savvy, but I would imagine that electrical interference would be interfering more than 200m away, if it were a factor at all, but I'm happy to accept that the distance is right. So the question still remains, why not head due West which in the picture appears to be a completely flat path, with the exception of some boulders which appear to be no more than 1 metre in diameter? I'll accept that you're not being a troll, WSS. However, what you are being is lazy. I find it slightly odd that anyone could sway towards the never went there side as there is overwhelming scientific, photographic and actual sample evidence that suggests they did, and general nitpicking rubbish which suggets they didn't. Unless your standpoint is to deny anything unless taken to the Moon yourself to stand next to any of the 6 remaining descent stages, and then still doubt it was possible because someone or something has drugged and hoaxed you in the intervening time, then I fail to see what can be suggested to you. As for Sadly Not - your smiley icon [in another relevent post] seemed pretty pleased with itself. That alone doesn't suggest an open minded stance, does it..? Edited 21 July, 2009 by St Landrew Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 The 'descent stages' are the bits of the spacecraft left behind. It's not the actual 'descent' of the craft. But if those pictures are not 'live', then clearly some of the module is left behind? If so, and if that is the same module used on Apollo 14, which bits go back up again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 I'll accept that you're not being a troll, WSS. However, what you are being is lazy. I find it slightly odd that anyone could sway towards the never went there side as there is overwhelming scientific, photographic and actual sample evidence that suggests they did, and general nitpicking rubbish which suggets they didn't. Unless your standpoint is to deny anything unless taken to the Moon yourself to stand next to any of the 6 remaining descent stages, and then still doubt it was possible because something has drugged and hoaxed you in the intervening time, then I fail to see what can be suggested to you. As for Sadly Not - your smiley icon seemed pretty pleased with itself. That alone doesn't suggest an open minded stance, does it..? Jeesh! Some of you guys really need to look up what 'debate' means! If we're not allowed to debate things on this site, there really isn't much point is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesaint sfc Posted 21 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 July, 2009 That's what I don't get, it's simply having a chat about something that may or may not have happened. Bit like when you do it in the pub. On here everyone gets into a right strop! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Jeesh! Some of you guys really need to look up what 'debate' means! If we're not allowed to debate things on this site, there really isn't much point is there? Well it depends on what you call debate WSS. If people write reams and reams of relevent stuff and you essentially write no they didn't as a reply, then I don't call that debate really. Frankly, I don't see where the debate of if they went comes in. They did land on the moon, 6 times in all and 1 gloriously failed, and it's as well proven as anything possibly could be. The intervening time of 40 years makes not a jot of difference. I can seriously debate whether they learned much, or whether it was valuable to the world, or whether they should bother to go again, or whether they should or shouldn't have stopped going. But as for whether or not they went in the first place, I think people have to be amazingly blinkered to deny the evidence. I mean, do you believe I am sat at a computer typing this in..? After all, it's only circumstantial evidence. But it is evidence you understand, so you might take my word for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_saints Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 If someone took a picture of me at work picking up an object...... I guarantee people would be able to look at colours/lighting/shadows etc to "prove" that I didn't actually pick the object up. As said in this thread, you can pick holes in anything, even if they don't exist. Oh, and lol at the people who believe it was faked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesaint sfc Posted 21 July, 2009 Author Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Look how f*cking ridiculous that shuttle looks! You really think that would actually be able to do anything? It looks like its made of cardboard and tin foil! Why can't you see any stars? Did the camera have a flash on it, or was the moon lit up by the sun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pancake Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Look how f*cking ridiculous that shuttle looks! You really think that would actually be able to do anything? It looks like its made of cardboard and tin foil! What shuttle? WTF are you talking about? Why can't you see any stars? Did the camera have a flash on it, or was the moon lit up by the sun?Go outside tonight when its dark, find a well lit area (supermarket carpark maybe) and take a hand held shot of the foreground and the sky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Look how f*cking ridiculous that shuttle looks! You really think that would actually be able to do anything? It looks like its made of cardboard and tin foil! Why can't you see any stars? Did the camera have a flash on it, or was the moon lit up by the sun? There are no stars in the pictures because the exposure times of the cameras were far too short. The stars are simply too faint to show up. This is something that can easily tested back on Earth; set a manual camera for a daylight exposure and take a picture of the night sky. The Moon would show up, but stars wouldn't. The astronauts didn't report seeing stars from the surface because their eyes were adjusted to the bright surface of the Moon. In bright light, the iris of the eye contracts to limit the amount of light that goes into the eye. This severely limits the ability of the eye to simultaneously see bright objects - like the lunar surface - and faint objects, like stars. So they couldn't see stars while on the Moon's surface, and for good reason. If you don't believe this, wait for a clear night. Go stand under a bright streetlight, and look up. Your eyes will adjust to the brightness of the light and, in doing so, prevent you from seeing stars. The astronauts reported seeing stars when they were away from bright light, especially when on the night side of the Moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 Now they are behaving like trolls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 It looks like its made of cardboard and tin foil! Actually, that's not far wrong - most of the shell is covered in little more than bacofoil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 May I suggest to people who didn't live through the times of the Moon landings, and who are not technically savvy, but may be slightly interested in getting some data sorted in their heads, if presented to them well, that they try watching the HBO drama series From The Earth To The Moon. This can be found on DVD now, and is a pretty damn accurate depiction of what actually happened. You'll find out why NASA chose to go to the Moon the way they did, and not land with a huge spacecraft, as in the science fiction stories. How the Lunar Module was designed, and why lots of it was covered in several layers of hi-tech foil. How the U.S. public lost interest in their Space Programme; why the first American to go into Space, went again many years later despite having been grounded most of the time; how the Lunar Rover came about, and why Galileo was right all along. Although it has never been officially explained, you may find out for yourself why Neil Armstrong was chosen as the first man to lead the first ever landing. I have my own theory, but you should be able to make up your own mind from watching this series. Buy it or borrow it, but give it a go. The 40th anniversary is as good a time as any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 I have just watched a special episode of Mythbusters who set out to look at the conspiracy theorists claims on faked photos, incorrect and dual lighting sources, shadows, footprints, flag-waving etc. They pretty much proved that it was possible to recreate conditions in NASA vacuum chambers with simulated moon soil, to show that all of the disputed facts could arise from actually being on the moon. They even recreated the peculiar loping and skipping walks in a 1/6g situation, something that didn't look right when filmed on earth at 48 fps and replayed at 24fps as the theorists claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lets B Avenue Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 The best explanation for why we haven't been back. A couple of years ago, during our local pub quiz. Q. What was Valentina Tereshkova famous for. A. 1st woman in space. Our former landlord, quiz master and local Sid the Sexist, was approached by a young girl from a team of students, complaining that they should have been awarded a mark for the right answer. "No" he replied "There hasn't been a woman on the moon. It dosen't need cleaning yet." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 All the Mythbusters' tests can be found here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skintsaint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 are those freaks at mythbusters using 21st century technology to prove this or are they using equipment available from the 60s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 are those freaks at mythbusters using 21st century technology to prove this or are they using equipment available from the 60s? The camera was a Hasselblad, similar to the ones used on the moon; the rest was low tech stuff, such as lumps of iron in a space boot in a vacuum chamber. Nothing I saw in the film wouldn't have been available in 1969. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skintsaint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 The camera was a Hasselblad, similar to the ones used on the moon; the rest was low tech stuff, such as lumps of iron in a space boot in a vacuum chamber. Nothing I saw in the film wouldn't have been available in 1969. fair enough, still too much evidence in favour of the actual event happening to change my mind though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 fair enough, still too much evidence in favour of the actual event happening to change my mind though. I think you're getting the wrong end of the stick. The Mythbusters were trying to show the conspiracy theorists' claims were false and that there were perfectly natural explanations for the so called 'anomalies' that they say are proof it was faked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skintsaint Posted 21 July, 2009 Share Posted 21 July, 2009 I think you're getting the wrong end of the stick. The Mythbusters were trying to show the conspiracy theorists' claims were false and that there were perfectly natural explanations for the so called 'anomalies' that they say are proof it was faked. ah gotcha now, well Ive always said what they have proved is correct so there we go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skintsaint Posted 4 September, 2009 Share Posted 4 September, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8237558.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dog Posted 4 September, 2009 Share Posted 4 September, 2009 Anyone who thinks the moon landings are fake are serious losers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecuk268 Posted 4 September, 2009 Share Posted 4 September, 2009 One of the Apollo missions left a mirror on the moon which many universities use to measure the precise distance from earth to moon by bouncing a laser beam off it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MongoNeil Posted 4 September, 2009 Share Posted 4 September, 2009 Look how f*cking ridiculous that shuttle looks! You really think that would actually be able to do anything? It looks like its made of cardboard and tin foil! Why can't you see any stars? Did the camera have a flash on it, or was the moon lit up by the sun? The same reason you can't see any stars in the sky during the day on Earth I would imagine... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 4 September, 2009 Share Posted 4 September, 2009 One of the Apollo missions left a mirror on the moon which many universities use to measure the precise distance from earth to moon by bouncing a laser beam off it. Yeah that makes sense, they can shoot lasers thousands of miles to hit a tiny mirror and measure the rebound - but they cant come up with a decent photograph of shed loads of space junk and a f**k-off great big flag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baj Posted 4 September, 2009 Share Posted 4 September, 2009 Yeah that makes sense, they can shoot lasers thousands of miles to hit a tiny mirror and measure the rebound - but they cant come up with a decent photograph of shed loads of space junk and a f**k-off great big flag. Pretty sure lasers and photographs are two different technologies... could be wrong tho... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lettuce Posted 4 September, 2009 Share Posted 4 September, 2009 Just to add a few minor details which don't seem to have been mentioned already... The ALSEP (Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Pack) (i.e. the bundle of scientific instruments left on the surface) used on Apollo 14 was mounted on a kind of "sledge" which was dragged along behind the astonauts, which could explain why the the "path" between lunar module and ALSEP is quite so pronounced in that recent orbital photo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Surface_Experiments_Package The reason the path is not perfectly straight could be due to a number of reasons: 1. It might be quite difficult to walk in a straight line when "hopping" in 1/6th gravity - A lot of people would probably have trouble walking in a perfectly straight line on the earth with no clear visual "cues"! 2. The astronauts didn't have a specific "target" to aim for - it's not like there was a big sign 200m away from the LM saying "Please bring the ALSEP over here!". It's more likely they started "walking" away from the LM and were looking for a suitable area of flat ground to locate the science pack. Both very reasonable explanations IMHO! It's correctly been pointed out that the descent stage was left behind on the lunar surface when the astronauts returned to lunar orbit. A slightly lesser known point is that on some missions, once the astronauts had transferred from the Lunar Module back into the Command Module in lunar orbit, the "ascent stage" of the LM was then jettisoned from the command module before they headed back towards the earth. The jettisoned ascent stage eventually impacted on the lunar surface and the shockwaves from the impact were detected by instruments left on the lunar surface to provide geologists with extra data to help determine the internal structure of the moon - kind of like a "choregraphed" meteor strike. Fascinating stuff! Personally, I'm in no doubt that the Apollo missions genuinely landed on the moon. I've been interested in Apollo (and manned space exploration in general) for years and have read a LOT of material on the subject (books, internet, scientific/engineering articles, documentaries) Nothing I've read has left me in any doubt that man really did set foot on the moon between '69-'72... and a fantastic achievement it was too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junction 9 Posted 6 September, 2009 Share Posted 6 September, 2009 To save me trawling through 3 pages of did we didn't we stuff, has anyone actually answered the original posters question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 6 September, 2009 Share Posted 6 September, 2009 To save me trawling through 3 pages of did we didn't we stuff, has anyone actually answered the original posters question? I can partly answer the original question j9. I don't know why they have not sent another MAN to the moon, but the reason a woman has never set foot there is because it does not need tidying up yet. HTH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 6 September, 2009 Share Posted 6 September, 2009 To save me trawling through 3 pages of did we didn't we stuff, has anyone actually answered the original posters question? See my post #11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 6 September, 2009 Share Posted 6 September, 2009 Back to the original question, you have to go back to 1972 for the answer. After Apollo 11, public interest in missions to the moon dropped alarmingly. Only the life-or-death drama of Apollo 13 briefly re-awakened public appetite in America for the Moon program. But after that, it was a bit like a mid-season episode of Big Brother. No one cared. And without public support in the US, there was no chance that it was going to continue - especially at a time when the Vietnam War was still being beamed into people's homes in all its technicolor horror. Meanwhile, NASA was thinking Big Thoughts - the Moon was too piddling. The reason the space shuttle was designed was as a first stage for building a craft in Earth orbit that would take astronauts to Mars. Of course, that didn't really excite public or political opinion either. And budget cuts limited the shuttle to little more than a service vehicle for popping up into earth orbit every now and again. To make things worse, a year after the last man stepped on the Moon, the oil crisis hit, and Western economies took a swallow dive. The technology that got men to the Moon was in many ways frighteningly crude, in others brilliantly inventive. It could be much more easily achieved today, but it would still be costly. Perhaps if Osama hadn't decied to fly those planes into the Twin Towers, we might have been back by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 6 September, 2009 Share Posted 6 September, 2009 I don't know why this subject gets brought up time and again. There is no need to believe whether NASA put a man on the moon or not, because there is plenty of evidence to back it up. Incidentally, there are only picky little bits of hearsay; interpretation of photos, etc... to suggest they didn't. To my mind, a person is lacking a little imagination or scope upstairs if they don't get by now. Rocketry itself isn't blindingly complicated, and that got a huge shove in the right direction, technology wise by the designers and developers of the German V2 missiles. It's true, certain materials weren't upto the job when JFK made his announcement, and so new or improved ones had to be developed. Small transistorised computer hardware was also in its infancy, and so that required extremely efficient programming and human intervention. It's always true that necessity is the mother of invention, and I don't know of a time when one country was so focussed on a goal. There were hugely influential people at the time in the USA who thought the whole idea was crazy and incredibly wasteful of money, and it certainly was a money pit. But it brought USA technology to the forefront, a lead which, in certain quarters they have never relinquished. It's what happens when a country can throw so much money at a a problem. Incidental benefits will certainly come out of it. The staggering bit for me was getting all the technologies together. The planning of the details must have been incredible. Remember also, that the actual design envelope of getting there hadn't been even thought about seriously back in 1960 odd. Even today, we still think of a big spaceship that lands everywhere and takes off again. Great if you solved the problem of power to weight ratios, but seriously science-fiction. So it comes as no surprise at all that the new missions announced for the forth coming years, where NASA will go back to the moon, are very much the same as when they did it before, because the initial design was almost perfect. The technological advances have been there, but not significant enough to make a mission to the Moon a cheap walk in the park. Yes it was staggering for them to have done it before, but it will still be staggering when they do it again. It's just that this time, most people will believe it because they think it'll be easy. And why haven't we been back in the intervening years..? Well, there has been little appetite for it in the USA, and NASA have been doing other things. No President has been willing to make the USA poorer, in the short term, by spending mega bucks on a Moonshot, when it has already been done 6 times, and no other single country can afford it anyway. Let's face it, the Shuttle was supposed to be a cost saving exercise in itself. But missions to Mars are going to make going to the Moon a necessity again, or so they say. It's easier to make a hop to the moon, and then take a tiny ship to Mars. But it'll still cost huge amounts of money. And as the old astronauts used to say... No Bucks, no Buck Rogers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilchards Posted 6 September, 2009 Share Posted 6 September, 2009 When this debate is finished can we have the 'Was Lady Di murdered?' Is Elvis alive' and my favorite one thats cropping up now 'The Michael Jacksons ghost to appear in concert' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hamster Posted 6 September, 2009 Share Posted 6 September, 2009 When this debate is finished can we have the 'Was Lady Di murdered?' Is Elvis alive' and my favorite one thats cropping up now 'The Michael Jacksons ghost to appear in concert' Michael jackson is dead? Bloody hell, they kept that quiet!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 6 September, 2009 Share Posted 6 September, 2009 When this debate is finished can we have the 'Was Lady Di murdered?' Is Elvis alive' and my favorite one thats cropping up now 'The Michael Jacksons ghost to appear in concert' Yeah go on then, you start the thread. I reckon Diana was murdered. I haven't a shred of evidence to prove it, but I like the feel of it, and I'm not keen on the Monarchy either, so there's my pitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 6 September, 2009 Share Posted 6 September, 2009 When this debate is finished can we have the 'Was Lady Di murdered?' Is Elvis alive' and my favorite one thats cropping up now 'The Michael Jacksons ghost to appear in concert' Not forgetting how Geroge W set the detonator charges that brought down the Twin Towers and how the planes that flew into the towers contained no passengers. Or how Southampton can't beg a win for love nor money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilchards Posted 6 September, 2009 Share Posted 6 September, 2009 Not forgetting how Geroge W set the detonator charges that brought down the Twin Towers and how the planes that flew into the towers contained no passengers. Or how Southampton can't beg a win for love nor money. talking of the twin towers, i see they are saying that they had bombs planted in them as no plane would explode a building like that. Good hey? As for the Southampton one, If someone said a Pompey manager would come to us and take us down before returning to pompey again I would of bloody laughed me tits off as that is just fiction surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanovski Posted 6 September, 2009 Share Posted 6 September, 2009 to save me looking through 3 pages...can some one explain the flag blowing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 6 September, 2009 Share Posted 6 September, 2009 to save me looking through 3 pages...can some one explain the flag blowing? That was on a pice of wire, to keep it "sticking out". The oscillations caused by it being rammed ito the ground would continue for a long time because the lack of atmosphere means there's no natural damping by the air molecules like there would be on earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 6 September, 2009 Share Posted 6 September, 2009 Back to the original question, you have to go back to 1972 for the answer. After Apollo 11, public interest in missions to the moon dropped alarmingly. Only the life-or-death drama of Apollo 13 briefly re-awakened public appetite in America for the Moon program. But after that, it was a bit like a mid-season episode of Big Brother. No one cared. And without public support in the US, there was no chance that it was going to continue - especially at a time when the Vietnam War was still being beamed into people's homes in all its technicolor horror. Meanwhile, NASA was thinking Big Thoughts - the Moon was too piddling. The reason the space shuttle was designed was as a first stage for building a craft in Earth orbit that would take astronauts to Mars. Of course, that didn't really excite public or political opinion either. And budget cuts limited the shuttle to little more than a service vehicle for popping up into earth orbit every now and again. To make things worse, a year after the last man stepped on the Moon, the oil crisis hit, and Western economies took a swallow dive. The technology that got men to the Moon was in many ways frighteningly crude, in others brilliantly inventive. It could be much more easily achieved today, but it would still be costly. Perhaps if Osama hadn't decied to fly those planes into the Twin Towers, we might have been back by now. That didn't happen either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 6 September, 2009 Share Posted 6 September, 2009 talking of the twin towers, i see they are saying that they had bombs planted in them as no plane would explode a building like that. Good hey? As for the Southampton one, If someone said a Pompey manager would come to us and take us down before returning to pompey again I would of bloody laughed me tits off as that is just fiction surely? Yup....believe it or not one of those very peeps is none other than one of Chairman O's close advisors ....he finaly had to resign last night over it......http://www.examiner.com/x-13348-Jacksonville-Republican-Examiner~y2009m9d6-Van-Jones-an-Obama-czar-resigns-after-having-his-radical-past-exposed-by-Fox-News-and-Glenn-Beck With the radical whack jobs and commies running the US Government at the moment, dont expect any further advances in space travel anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastleighSoulBoy Posted 7 September, 2009 Share Posted 7 September, 2009 Yup....believe it or not one of those very peeps is none other than one of Chairman O's close advisors ....he finaly had to resign last night over it......http://www.examiner.com/x-13348-Jacksonville-Republican-Examiner~y2009m9d6-Van-Jones-an-Obama-czar-resigns-after-having-his-radical-past-exposed-by-Fox-News-and-Glenn-Beck With the radical whack jobs and commies running the US Government at the moment, dont expect any further advances in space travel anytime soon. And less 'freeing' of far flung states which have oil but would otherwise have not reached the attention of the yewessofa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 9 October, 2009 Share Posted 9 October, 2009 So, we could send a man to walk on the moon 30 odd years ago, but these days we can't manager to get a probe to take a camera up there and get some decent pictures! Perhaps that's the price you pay for technological advancement :smt102 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