PeteBrant

Although obviously very,very silly, those people aren't claiming that man has never been in space, simply that we have never landed on the moon.

logiclee

Did they fake Apollo 13 just to make the missions seam more realistic?

Cheers
Lee

Holy Ghost

**

there's a kevin bacon gag in there somewhere ...

logiclee

It wasn't about space exploration it was about getting there before the Russians and then rubbing their noses in it.
The massive funding was passed because they were in the middle of the cold war with Russia and Russia was kicking the Americans *** with space exploration.
Once the job had been done and their noses rubbed in it with a few follow up missions it became purely a space project then the funding and American will dried up.
If Americans current enemy was sending unmanned missions to Mars and planning on a manned mission then perhaps Nasa would have a bigger budget.

Cheers
Lee

ZIPPY

No debris matching a 757 was found, no arabs where even on the mysterious flight 77, was there even a flight 77 ?


Have a read:I think you will agree that something isnt right.

Backs up the conspiracy theory very well imho.

Flight 77 and the Pentagon Crash - What Really Happened Here?

stilover

They can't

EvilBevel

Those astronauts were about to blow the whistle...

stilover

I just don't believe that back then, we had the technology to go to the moon let alone land on it.
I also don't believe that man can survive outside the earth protective atmosphere without frying from the Radiation. 2mm Aluminium or not.

All "Space" travel today is done within the Earths orbit. Space Station, Satelites, Space walks etc.

Why not build the Space Station outside Earths orbit and in deep space? If it's not a problem to man, then why not?

I believe in time we will have the technology to do it, yes. I would like to see man on Mars in my life time. It would truely be Mans most significant achiement to date.

Holy Ghost

**

why not? werner von braun invented the world's first international ballistic missile system in 1942. 65 years ago. it worked: add nearly 30 years of urgently-funded rocketry R&D on top of that (with von braun at its centre) and you have ... astronauts playing golf on the moon by the early 70s. it's called progress.

PeteBrant

Did you know NASA scientists said that getting concorde to fly at supersonic speeds was a technological achievment on a par with landing a man on the moon.
Because of the prohibitive cost.

It's not a question of "Why not" it's a question of "why should we?". You have to justify to the taxpayer, spending billion sof dollars rather than open 17 hospitals, for example.

What do you have to gain by building a space station in deep space? Does it justify the cost?

logiclee

Cost.

To leave earth's orbit you need massive thrust.

ie. A Saturn V rocket.

Those on the Shuttle are from a 1.3lx in comparison.

You may want to think about joining......

The Space Fellowship :: Index

Cheers
Lee

Markus

I say that man did walk on the moon. It was done to show the Russians that the US was superior. Remember this was back at the height of the cold war, when WW3 would have been an all out nuclear war, which makes OSL's little terror campaign seem like two boys playing with wooden guns.

Yes, the technology was far behind what we have today, but tech progresses pretty fast, I believe that moores law (power of computing doubles every 2 years) has held true for quite some time, possibly even from the time of the lunar missions. There is also the health and safety aspect. Back then things were far, far less strict than they are today. They could "get away" with things that you'd never even consider doing today.

Why have we not been back since those first few missions? Cost is one factor another would be "what's the point?" the whole "been there, done that, got the moon rock and the grey alien t-shirt" idea. They beat the Russians to the moon, why bother going back. A moon base? A nice idea, but you're talking about a massive investment in not only money, but time and effort, designing and building not only the base itself, but the vehicles to get the base there, plus the construction crew.
The moon is a tiny bit further away than a space station in orbit, so it's not like a shuttle mission where it's up, float about a bit and down. In fact, if you figure the Shuttle program into this, where would the orbiter land on the moon? If it's not too land then you need to equip it with some kind of lander craft, which would take up valuable cargo space.

As for why the ISS is not in deep space, probably more to do with fuel I'd guess. I'm not sure how it stays where it is, I presume there is some kind of thruster system, then again, it could simply be in geo-sync orbit, held there by the grav field of earth, thus it's a nice and cheap system of keeping it in place, otherwise they would need to keep ferrying fuel up there, unless it has some facility to produce fuel.

I think the real answer to this whole "did we land on the moon" question will be answered when a) we, or someone else (China, I think, is working on a lunar mission, plus I think there is some x-prize competition for a lunar lander as well) goes back to the moon, b) Buzz, Neil, or any of the other astronauts who were on the lunar missions, die, as I suspect they'd have put by documents to be opened upon their death detailing if it was all faked.

angrynorth

OK, I read that. What a load of old ****.

rik-1

I heard a story that said when Buzz Aldrin was signing some autographs, someone came up to him and insulted him by saying that he hadn't really gone to to moon. So buzz got up and punched the man hard enough to send him straight to the ground!!

As for radiation, it's not just the strength of the radiation but the time exposed to it. Not many people would be worried by having the occasional X-Ray. But would you want one every day?

After going to the moon, Nasa turned there attention to unmanned missions. We now have gone to all planets and have seen the weather systems over Neptune.

It's easy enough to get to the Moon now, only this week an unmanned mission sent by China is on it's way there.

If you count the lunar orbiter, then 18 of the 24 people that went to the Moon are still alive.

Sonic'

Some interesting discussions going on on this thread now

I saw a reference to Concorde, so in the same vein

Concorde was built in 1969 and had its first flight

Man landed on the moon in 1969

Neither has been bettered (in the case of the moon, not gone back as such)

Why has Concorde never been bettered, and why has it been taken out of production

Why have we not gone back to the moon

Concorde definatlely happened, so why not the Moon Landings ?

Markus

It was when Buzz was leaving a hotel. Some chap jumped in front of him and asked him to swear on the bible that he had been to the moon, or admit it was fake. When Buzz ignored the chap he pushed him and called him a liar and a coward. At that point Buzz punched the chap in the face.

lozgti

That made me smile

Mind you ,threads that remind me how old I am ie born before man stepped on the moon don't

rik-1

A lot of engineers that had previously worked on the British Space programme and launched Prospero (still orbiting) went on to work on Concorde.

Holy Ghost

i suspect many conspiracists in many places would all be stout believers if the sov's or chinese had got there first. tell me you don't feel just a touch antee-yankee or that michael moore is a serious and unbiased documentary maker?

EvilBevel

I was 7 when I saw the (obviously fake ) live coverage.

EvilBevel

The Sovjets had a few "firsts" though...

Geezer

There isn't one good piece of evidence now that even comes close to saying that man never went to the moon. All the original theories have been de-bunked as bad science or simple misunderstanding.

Very few people now subscribe to that theory, and those that do are unlikely to be converted even if you took them to the moon and showed them the landing site!

People love a consipiracy!

Geezer

EvilBevel

One could wonder if it is a new kind of religion...

john_s

iTrader: (1)

It's not technology you need to get to the moon, just a sound understanding of physics.

Pilots don't partially fry in high altitude flights which are all but outside the atmosphere, do they?

Indeed it is done within the Earth Orbit. All the lunar missions were within Earth's orbit too.

However, current missions do fly (for all practical purposes) outside the Earth's atmosphere (or they wouldn't be in space)... and they don't fry from the radiation, do they?

Logistics. To get supplies to a station out of Earth orbit, you need a huge amount of energy to get the supplies (and your chosen transport system) outside the Earth's gravitational pull.

Brendan Hughes

Why not build the space station outside earth's orbit?

Er, coz then you'd probably lose it.

The ISS etc are in earth's orbit. Yes, and so is the moon. That's why it keeps following us around.

Next question?

logiclee

The Russians had just about every other first which is why the Americans put so much effort and money in putting the first man on the moon.

Cheers
Lee

Suresh

Not clicking it, sorry.

Check the passenger manifests of 9/11 on Wiki. Google some of the passengers and you'll find reams of evidence of their demise, incl. school kids on a National Geographic trip. There are apparently thousands of people involved in your conspiracy, which almost certainly means it is anything but.

Buckwheat

As to why they stopped going to the moon in the early seventies, it was the 1973 Arab Israeli war and subsequent spiralling inflation in the West that led to a major scaling down of the prohibitively expensive lunar missions. From then on cost efficiency was the aim, hence a re-usable platform (the Shuttle) was developed. The money for more major "showpiece" moon landings of dubious utility (since they'd already been done) simply wasn't there.

OllyK

Sorry I don't agree, Loose Change (and others) have covered this before and done it just as badly. They cherry pick like crazy to make thier point and just ignore everything that doesn't fit. If you want to see it picked apart have a look here, here, here, here and here

CrisPDuk

I absolutely believe they went to the moon, for two reasons;

1/ As has been proven time and again, keeping a conspiracy that large covered up for this long is nigh on impossible.
2/ The Russians, the British, and the Australians were all tracking the Apollo missions and receiving their broadcasts. The Russkies would not have hesitated for a moment to shout it from the rooftops if there was even the merest hint of it being faked


I also believe that it was not an aircraft that struck the pentagon, all modern commercial aircraft carry their fuel in the wings, despite the massive fireball there was no fire damage on the front of the outer building to either side of the hole. I dont think an aluminium tube full of air would penetrate that far into a heavily reinforced concrete structure either
Otherwise why would the USAF spend so much money developing 'Bunker Busters' and the like

I personally believe the Pentagon was hit by a stray missile fired by a nervous and trigger happy ANG pilot Which let's face it, is not an unknown occurence