Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Log In

A valid email is required.
Password is required.
Site Notices
5/29/2017 5:35:05 AM
Posted: 7/17/2001 4:53:38 AM EDT
[img]http://www.sudobash.com/~jon99/moonlandinghoax.jpg[/img]
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 5:15:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2001 5:12:37 AM EDT by ECS]
Yes they landed on the moon and came back safely. The year was 1969 if I remember correctly. VIETNAM was a bit of distraction at this same time... While your'e at it please analyze the Zapruder tape of the JFK assasination, frame by frame, then report back your analysis to this board. THanks..
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 5:20:59 AM EDT
Here are a few sites that debunk this tired old crap very nicely: [url]http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/thief.html[/url] [url]http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/News/2001/News-MoonLanding.asp[/url] [url]http://www.cs.usask.ca/undergrads/ljh886/assignment1/anti_hoax.html[/url]
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 5:26:53 AM EDT
You mean the thing Wallace and Grommit landed on?
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 5:28:28 AM EDT
Thank you ECS and RikWriter. This tired old TFHC (tinfoil hat conspiracy) has been debunked over and over and over. My father worked in the space program and people who call him a liar cause my blood pressure to escalate to dangerous levels. FMCDH Semper Fidelis Jarhead out. -------------------- “Beware the fury of a patient man.” --John Dryden
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 5:50:49 AM EDT
Not again!...Yes! Elvis is Dead!
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 3:00:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2001 3:00:01 PM EDT by doctorfireant]
Also, go to: [URL]www.enterprisemission.com[/URL] Read threads on "who mourns for appollo" Richard Hoagland used to work for NASA.
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 3:09:42 PM EDT
My dad was an engineer with NASA for almost two decades and was there during the Mercury, Gemini and all but the ass end of the Apollo program. He finds this nonsense to be screamingly funny. The number of extremely smart people on the ground that would have had to be fooled for this hoax to have actually happened is staggering. Another illustration that people who believe in nothing will believe anything.
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 3:28:16 PM EDT
Yes I was there in 87 but I'm not supposed to talk about it.
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 3:32:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 3:36:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 3:36:30 PM EDT
Topic by scarecrow -
Did anyone ever land on the moon?
View Quote
Pardon me, scarecrow, but you wouldn't by any chance really be Congresscritter Shirley Jackson-Lee, the Democrat from Houston, Texas, now would you? Eric The(Hell,IHadToAsk!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 3:37:21 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 3:45:30 PM EDT
Goatboy- That's an easy one. The time spent inside the radiation belts is very short. These guys are traveling thousands of miles an hour. If you parked a vehicle in orbit inside the Van Allen belts it would eventually prove fatal but these astronauts zipped right through and got a dose of radiation about equal to a dental X-ray.
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 3:48:02 PM EDT
I believe Shirley Jackson-Lee landed on Mars.
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 3:55:23 PM EDT
Goatboy wrote: My only question regarding all this is how we handled tha radiation belts between us and the moon??? I mean, even the shuttle doesn't have significant radiation shielding... AND isn't it odd that we have NOT been back to the moon since? Shouldn't we be building a station on the moon rather than in earths orbit???
View Quote
Answer to your first question: They crossed their fingers and hoped like hell there were no solar flares during the mission. And they risked cancer later in life. Apparently a pretty good risk, as the incidence of cancer among moon mission astronauts hasn't been too bad. Radiation in space is only really bad in the Van Allen belts, and they transitioned through those fairly fast. However, if there had been a significant solar flare in their direction, they'd have most probably died of cancer within a few years. Answer to your second question: We aren't building a moon base because we can't convince Congress to fund it. We're having a hard enough time convincing them to put up the space station. And you need an orbital station BEFORE you build a moon base. We handled the exploitation of space the wrong way. We made a race out of it, and threw money at a "get there NOW" project, instead of engineering a system to get us there and keep us there in a slow and steady manner. As a result, the minute Armstrong's foot touched the surface of the moon, we "won", and public interest (and Congressional appropriations) vanished. Frankly, I'm surprised the project went through Apollo 17, even though it was scheduled through Apollo 20. Now we're stuck with a 20 year old space truck that can't make geosynchronous orbit. Hell, we ought to be having moon vacations by now. Our future is out there, not down here.
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 3:59:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By doctorfireant: Also, go to: [URL]www.enterprisemission.com[/URL] Read threads on "who mourns for appollo" Richard Hoagland used to work for NASA.
View Quote
Richard Hoagland is a raving lunatic.
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 4:02:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KBaker:
Goatboy wrote: My only question regarding all this is how we handled tha radiation belts between us and the moon??? I mean, even the shuttle doesn't have significant radiation shielding... AND isn't it odd that we have NOT been back to the moon since? Shouldn't we be building a station on the moon rather than in earths orbit???
View Quote
Answer to your first question: They crossed their fingers and hoped like hell there were no solar flares during the mission. And they risked cancer later in life. Apparently a pretty good risk, as the incidence of cancer among moon mission astronauts hasn't been too bad. Radiation in space is only really bad in the Van Allen belts, and they transitioned through those fairly fast. However, if there had been a significant solar flare in their direction, they'd have most probably died of cancer within a few years. Answer to your second question: We aren't building a moon base because we can't convince Congress to fund it. We're having a hard enough time convincing them to put up the space station. And you need an orbital station BEFORE you build a moon base. We handled the exploitation of space the wrong way. We made a race out of it, and threw money at a "get there NOW" project, instead of engineering a system to get us there and keep us there in a slow and steady manner. As a result, the minute Armstrong's foot touched the surface of the moon, we "won", and public interest (and Congressional appropriations) vanished. Frankly, I'm surprised the project went through Apollo 17, even though it was scheduled through Apollo 20. Now we're stuck with a 20 year old space truck that can't make geosynchronous orbit. Hell, we ought to be having moon vacations by now. Our future is out there, not down here.
View Quote
Amen, Living in a nice Island III type colony, where we could start over with proper governments and societies...ahhh...dont get me started. Gerard O'Neal was THE MAN...
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 4:04:57 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 4:16:14 PM EDT
Post from Arock -
I believe Shirley Jackson-Lee landed on Mars.
View Quote
That's right, she just [u]thought[/u] she landed on the moon![:D] Eric The(JustThink-SheMakesLawsForUS!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 6:13:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/17/2001 6:26:01 PM EDT by cyberian]
What bunch of garbage. Could it be some be jealous foreigner is trying to put down our moon landing. Don't you fools from across the pond have anything you can be proud of? This stuff is so old school kids could tear your conspiracy theory to shreds.
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 6:24:46 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 6:44:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR_Rifle: Not again!...Yes! Elvis is Dead!
View Quote
NO HE IS NOT!.....I saw him last year in a 86 buick....he had his german shepherd with him.....he looked like he was going to stop and do some fishin` next to us, but he left.....guess somebody recognized him.......
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 8:06:47 PM EDT
We could not possibly have learned everything that we could from the few trips we supposedly took to the Moon. I agree with Goatboy, why have we not been back??
Link Posted: 7/17/2001 9:05:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GoatBoy: So why doesn't NASA just fly another mission to the moon now for popularity??? I would think that it would be a HUGE deal to revisit the moon and the landmarks left there. -- GB
View Quote
Shhhhhh!!!! It's a big secret ! McUZI has donated his GyroJet to NASA for the next moon launch! They will be leaving it on the surface along with a UN flag.
Link Posted: 7/18/2001 11:29:03 AM EDT
NASA has become too conservative to accomplish anything more than basic research these days. You want advancement, you'll have to wait until a private, for profit, company succedes in claiming the X-prize and builds a proper space truck. All that money on the ISS and apart from the robot arm, there are no facilities for building spacecraft there. WTF?
Link Posted: 7/18/2001 2:18:08 PM EDT
I think we should spend even less on NASA. Its a huge waste of money in my opinion. Except for things like launching military or weather satellites. I mean how many times do we have to launch the shuttle so they can see how bean sprouts grow in outer space. WFC about this stuff? What can we learn about the moon that will will make our lives better? And who cares if there was water on Mars? If you want to find out, spend your own damn money on it.
Link Posted: 7/18/2001 2:33:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GoatBoy: So why doesn't NASA just fly another mission to the moon now for popularity??? I would think that it would be a HUGE deal to revisit the moon and the landmarks left there.
View Quote
Money, danger, technology, and public support (money). We don't currently even have a lifting vehicle capable of taking a man to the moon. The last Saturn V's are sitting as display models and will never fly. More to the point, we don't have the capability to build any new ones. We'd have to design a brand-new vehicle from scratch. Without the gung-ho attitude of the '60's space race, you're looking at 10+ years of inter-agency infighting and contract overruns, just like the Space Shuttle. Ever wonder why there isn't a replacement for IT? In short, we went from not having a man in space to setting foot on the moon in 10 years. Right now, I don't think we could go back before 2015 if we started right now. We're too underbudgeted, overly legislated, badly managed, and risk-adverse. And we lack sufficient national will. It's not just a matter of money. I grew up on the Florida Space Coast. I saw every Saturn V launch except for the first test launch. I watched every landing on TV. My father was a quality control engineer for IBM, and responsible for the navigation system on the Saturn V Instrument Unit (the 6' black ring between the payload bay and the third stage). In 1969 I'd have sworn we'd be living on the moon by 1980. In 1974 the Apollo program ended with Apollo-Soyuz and Skylab. Dad went to work on laser-scanning cash registers, and we moved to North Carolina. If you'd asked me then, I would have said we'd be living on the moon by 2000. Now I don't think this country will be the next to go back.
Link Posted: 7/18/2001 2:33:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By CalGat: I think we should spend even less on NASA. Its a huge waste of money in my opinion. Except for things like launching military or weather satellites. I mean how many times do we have to launch the shuttle so they can see how bean sprouts grow in outer space. WFC about this stuff? What can we learn about the moon that will will make our lives better? And who cares if there was water on Mars? If you want to find out, spend your own damn money on it.
View Quote
So we can move there you asshole. They are not incorect in that this planet will run out of resources sooner or later, there are just too many variables to determen when. So to survive as a species we will have to move part of the population off this rock, and exploit the resourses of other planets. And the people doing that exploiting will have to live somewhere now won't they?
Link Posted: 7/18/2001 2:38:17 PM EDT
K Baker, You dont think that a American will win the X-prize? Or you just think it will be a long time before someone does? Perhaps we should look to the private sector if the government cant get its head out of its ass.
Link Posted: 7/18/2001 2:46:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: So we can move there you asshole. They are not incorect in that this planet will run out of resources sooner or later, there are just too many variables to determen when. So to survive as a species we will have to move part of the population off this rock, and exploit the resourses of other planets. And the people doing that exploiting will have to live somewhere now won't they?
View Quote
ArmdLbrl - i would like for YOU to move to the moon, if you are not already there.
Link Posted: 7/18/2001 2:48:45 PM EDT
"A small step for man, a giant leap for mankind.............- come walk with me for a day motherfucker - A grunt I Corps RVN 1969" That summons it up about right. Kuiper
Link Posted: 7/18/2001 2:58:35 PM EDT
Well said Kuiper, Well said!........
Link Posted: 7/18/2001 3:11:53 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: K Baker, You dont think that a American will win the X-prize?
View Quote
Americans very well might win the X-Prize. But 100km is hardly a trip to the moon.
Or you just think it will be a long time before someone does?
View Quote
Yes.
Perhaps we should look to the private sector if the government cant get its head out of its ass.
View Quote
The X-Prize is for private venture only - no government involvement allowed. But like I said, there's a world of difference between 100km and 230,000 miles. I don't think any private company short of Microsoft could front the necessary money, and Billy-boy isn't likely to. There isn't enough economic advantage for industry to invest. It's too expensive right now unless someone discovers something that's only available or manufacturable there that is worth the cost. So, we're stuck with publicly funded (read: taxes and government) exploration for the sake of exploration. And private ventures that are attempting to do what our government managed in 1962. I figure some government will figure out that the future is out there and will go for it, but I don't think it will be ours or any other nominally democratic nation because those tend towards the least common denominator (no offense, CalGat). China looks like a reasonable bet. Education is VERY high on the national agenda, they have a billion people to tax, and they have an authoritarian government that can do whatever the ruling party has the will to do. However, they're WAY behind the learning curve. (Of course Slick Willy really helped out with all those military secrets, didn't he?) I wouldn't be surprised if China didn't just buy Russia's heavy-lifting technology. I don't think France and ArianeSpace have any plans to progress to manned missions. They have a big chunk of the satellite booster business and that's what they like. I don't see any other competitors. Perhaps if China really gets into a manned space mission groove the U.S. will re-enter the space race, but I think we're too apathetic now to care. "Been there, done that."
Link Posted: 7/18/2001 3:15:08 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/18/2001 3:19:59 PM EDT
Hey..............I did......back in 86 or was that 76?[):)]
Link Posted: 7/18/2001 3:24:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/18/2001 3:34:51 PM EDT by drfcolt]
Originally Posted By Kuiper: "A small step for man, a giant leap for mankind.............- come walk with me for a day motherfucker - A grunt I Corps RVN 1969" That summons it up about right. Kuiper
View Quote
I would say that the astronauts that participated in the moon landings had just as much courage as those who served in VN. Two different ways of serving ones country with valor. Don't forget that a quite a few of our astronauts were Air Force/Navy aviation combat verterns of Korea and WWII and maybe even VN.
Link Posted: 7/18/2001 3:25:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/18/2001 3:40:44 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Isnt most of the cost involved in getting up into space? [img]http://www.dyarstraights.com/msgundam/DELTA_V.GIF[/img] DeltaV=dollars right? If you have a space platform, its not necessacery to go directly from the surface of the earth to the moon like last time. What is needed to lift things higher is a space tug, not a more powerful ground launch vheicle, which you are probably not going to get. A space tug would be little more than the ball from 2001. It doesnt ever have to reinter or land. Its just a pressure ball in a frame with some claws, lights and thrusters attached. So one or two crewmen in shirt sleeves can move a object from one place to another. This is another of my pet peeves. The way NASA builds things. Assembling entire spacecraft in a giant clean room. What the heck is with that. Look at NOAA and the Navy, they build deep sea submersables that go into a much more dangerous and technically challenging enviroment where they are exposed to hundreds of atmopheres of pressure- in space your only job is to contain one atmosphere of pressure. They do not assemble them in clean rooms. They cost a fraction of what NASA spends on space craft. We should be able to build a spacecraft with shipyard or airliner assembly line technology. Also, why do we have to waste expensive rockets lifting bulk items like fuel, air and watter to the space craft. If it isnt allive it should be fired from a cannon. Modified 16" Navy guns put satellites into orbit back in the early 60's. A rail gun could shoot couple ton tanks of oxygen or water or food, or cargo pods full of knocked down machenery into orbit. A space tug then intercepts and collects them. The containers can be returned on empty passenger flights, or better yet, cannabalized for construction materials. The cannnon could send a constant stream of projectiles carrying bulk supplies into orbit at a very low cost.
Link Posted: 7/18/2001 3:29:24 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/18/2001 3:33:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/18/2001 3:33:33 PM EDT by KBaker]
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Isnt most of the cost involved in getting up into space? DeltaV=dollars right?
View Quote
MASS * DeltaV = $$
If you have a space platform, its not necessacery (sic) to go directly from the surface of the earth to the moon like last time.
View Quote
You've still got to lift the mass up to the space platform. However, the vehicle that takes you FROM the space platform to the moon and back can be CONSIDERABLY different from a direct earth-to-moon vehicle. Not having to take your re-entry vehicle with you should save mucho mass. (Edited because AR15.com didn't recognize my "delta" symbol.)
Link Posted: 7/18/2001 3:56:37 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/18/2001 4:03:43 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Originally Posted By KBaker:
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl: Isnt most of the cost involved in getting up into space? DeltaV=dollars right?
View Quote
MASS * DeltaV = $$
If you have a space platform, its not necessacery (sic) to go directly from the surface of the earth to the moon like last time.
View Quote
You've still got to lift the mass up to the space platform. However, the vehicle that takes you FROM the space platform to the moon and back can be CONSIDERABLY different from a direct earth-to-moon vehicle. Not having to take your re-entry vehicle with you should save mucho mass. (Edited because AR15.com didn't recognize my "delta" symbol.)
View Quote
It gets even easier if you send a unmanned craft with fuel, air, a pressure shack, and your lunar lander ahead of you and park it orbiting L1. Then you just need a space buss to fly between your orbiting platform and your half way house. no part of the trip would have to be done by one ship, all could be customized to one role and greatly simplified, saving $$$. All stages would be reuseable, saving $$$. And if someone wins the X-prize we will have found our way to get people up for $1000 a pound or less, 1/10th the shuttles cost. If we could get the cannon built that cost would fall even further.
Link Posted: 7/18/2001 4:17:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/18/2001 4:15:08 PM EDT by fattym4]
what is this..........[i]MOON[/i] you all speak of ??? and what's all this about humans "flying" ??? i'm sorry, but i was trained since birth NOT to look up! all your..."technical jargon" [i]frightens and confuses me[/i]...i thought that this cumbersome yet pleasingly reflectve hat i've always worn was supposed to filter out this "free-thinking" garbage! Moderators, i appeal to your senses of decency...please intervene and stop the madness and the lies! PLEASE! my feet have never left the ground, and i REFUSE to believe than man has flown ...THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
Top Top