misty

In 1962 JFK said "America will put a man on the moon before the end of the decade" They said they did (I personally have never subscribed to that statement, along with thousands of americans.) They did all this in just eight years using what is today 40 year old technology, i.e. There is 10 times more processing power in an average home pc of today than those they used to "put a man on the moon". So how come with all of today's super computers, space know how, and the like, they can't manage to do it again for another 15 years??? Sounds very fishy to me .
dave

V45DSM

The Americans never went to the moon, JFK's murder was not a conspiracy and Diana was bumped off, IMHO.

johnfelstead

they have to send some covert missions there before hand to put the junk from the TV studio up there.

hades

Processing power is pretty irrelevant. With a bit of manual correction, you only need decent instruments and a pretty basic navigational computer - as you suggest any normal PC is more than good enough with the right software. The more difficult things are relaibly producing the motive power to get you up there and back, the life support for long periods (they aren't talking about going and coming straight back now, as I understand it) etc.

Again, all IMHO

misty

Fair comment! but, they can launch a shuttle more or less on demand it's only 3 days!! to the moon (not rocket science is it)
dave. My point is, if they could do it(allegedley!) 40 years ago, why not now??
dave

what would scooby do

I think you'll find it is.. LOL

johnfelstead

The space shuttle can only survive in close earth orbit, it isnt protected suficiently from radiation to venture further.

Katana

So how would a little capsule powered by kerosene made it to the moon and protected the astronout from radiation? If the shuttle couldnt do it because of this reason then..

yoza

They did go, reason being my local Omega dealer told me so.

He said here you go, you guillable ****, this is as exact replica of the watch which was worn on the moon.

'Really', I said.

'Ill have it'.

*Sonic*

They have (allegedly) been to the Moon, there isnt anything there, why waste money going back

on another note, would you really trust Windows Software to get you to the moon and back

rossyboy

iTrader: (8)

Never happened. All staged to boost moral of americans IMO

hedgehog

I believe they went to the moon. While the physics of a lot of the "they didn't go" claims are flawed what really convinces me is that the Russians never disputed that they got there. Just think about the politics at that time and you would realise that if the Russians had the least doubt they would have made a big thing from it. They also left a mirror on the moon that anyone with a suitable laser and detector can reflect light from, while that doesn't prove that there was a man there it does prove that they landed and deployed a mirror in a controlled manner.

As someone pointed out the basic maths of getting to the moon are pretty simple and don't require much in the way of processing power. The propulsion and life support systems are a different matter.

There is some discussion in the scientific journals that the current moon missions are a PR cover up for the withdrawal of the shuttle missions. They are withdrawing the shuttle to fund the future moon missions, they claim, but some people are saying that they need a nice way to cancel the shuttle without losing face. So, what looks like a massive expansion of the US space program might actually be a tactical retreat.

ScoobyDoo555

Of course not. you'd use a Mac OS why do you think space exploration costs so much!!

Dan

IWatkins

They haven't been to the moon, come on, they said "Here are some moon rocks", but they weren't made from green cheese.

Well, you can bash the Americans all you like. I for one am happy that at least the willing is there. Humans back to doing what they do best: Exploring.

Cheers

Ian

andrew6321

yoza - you fell for that too eh?

Mick

iTrader: (1)

I didn't get the watch - But my Aunty did get me the pen

The billion dollar pen that writes upside down, under water, over oil etc. etc.
The story goes that the russians took a pencil LOL

It is worth all this investment though... Just think how we'd manage without teflon saucepans

Mick

Sticky Stuff

and Velcro...

Nimbus

We (the UK) landed on the moon in 1981!! It's just that no one noticed....

Leslie

I you have ever stood in the VAB and seen a complete rocket/capsule assembly being worked on prior to a moonshot, and been up to the top of the VAB to see it all from the other aspect, Then you cannot help but realise the incredible complication of getting it all to work at all. Standing underneath it and realising that one rocket motor exhaust is the size of a small room further underlines it all.

You cannot help admiring the capabilities of the entire NASA operation with the space successes that they have achieved.

Les

Petem95

Except approx 1 million tonnes of helium 3 which is potentially worth about $4 billion per tonne....

Geezer

Computing power has very little to do with the ability to get anywhere in the solar system, as the Viking Landers, Gallileo, Voyager probes demonstrate. It's just all working out the trajectory and, effects of gravity of other bodies and working out there positions at any one time. Solar eclipses, the return of Halleys comet were all worked out before the advent of computers.

It's just (albeit very complex) physics.

Geezer

NACRO

I don't believe that the Americans landed men on the moon either. Then again I don't believe that the earth is round either- whenever you see a picture taken from "space" it always looks like a flat disc.

Scoobychick

iTrader: (1)

Slightly off topic but sort of connected is the news that all space shuttle missions to repair and service the Hubble Telescope are to be scrapped which could put the telescope out of use in four years

So no more beautiful pics like this one, at least not from Hubble anyway:

The Eagle Nebula






[Edited by scoobychick - 1/19/2004 1:42:17 PM]

mattstant

somone link to the thread last year when all this pathetic feeble minded twaddle about oooooh its a conspiracy we never went to the moon and shadows on the photos prove it crap,
was comprehensively blown away.
Never mind i'll go look myself.

mattstant

ahhh found it
http://www.scoobynet.co.uk/bbs/threa...hreadID=121499

nuff said

Dan B

There are perfectly good scientific reasons to explain away each bit of "conspiracy" evidence....

I'm amazed that people disputed it in the first place.... bunch of time wasters.

TelBoy

Matt, "feeble-minded" it might have seemed, but *nobody*, repeat *nobody*, repeat again *nobody* can adequately explain how Apollo was sufficiently shielded against the solar radiation for the duration of the Apollo trips - the single biggest concern of NASA today for a manned Moon base.

You might *think* they can, because you don't want to believe what you perceive as conspiracy nonsense, which is another matter entirely. But you're merely taking somebody else's word for it if you think this aspect has a fully satisfactory answer. Just so's you know....

NeilT

apart from the reportedly v.poor control of the lunar lander during testing, the strange shadows of the astronauts, exactly identical landscapes (in several shots), reflections on the helmets etc....IMHO the #1 reason that the Moon Landings never took place = the cotton suits and construction of Apollo would not have protected the astronauts in anyway from the lethal effects of the Van Allen Radiation Belt, hence they all would have died years ago (which they havent).

Neil

Dan B

They weren't sufficiently shielded at all, but could get away with it for the 9 days the missions took. I think that each 'nuat got about 3 times the earth background of beta radiation. Cosmic rays were a bit of an **** though, they produced sintillations on retinas.

thats why they want to bury it...

TonyG

Um, I think the landscapes all looked similar (i.e. flat) because they were all picked to ensure there wasn't anything big enough to damage the lunar module on landing (big rocks, big craters, big hills). The ground also had to be flat to enable the upper stage to be launched successfully - if it was at anything of an angle to the horizontal (the maximum angle could have been as small as 15 degrees), then the guys wouldn't have been coming home.