http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-apollo18-2009jul18,0,6513400.story
I rest my case
I await to hear what the conspiracy theorists rebuttal will be...
You know what they will say that was all faked in a lot on some Hollywood set just like the original moon landing. A good question to ask those quacks is how , If we never landed on the moon or entered into outer space we now have satellites.
How come the shadow of the module is to the right,but the shadows of everything else is to the left?As far as satellites go,we didn't need to personally go into space to have and launch satellites.I do believe we went to the moon though,I have no doubts about that.
(sighs) im not getting into this retarded debate so i will respectfully bow out of this one. Believe what you want.
LOL, the "we(you) never went to the moon" morons are either just trying to discredit the US, trying to make their own notoriety or
are just plain morons, probably in the lower 10% of the average population in intelligence...
The "shadows to the left" are in craters and thus are shadows to the right of the left hand crater wall.
Shiny Side Up!
Bill
To be honest that photo doesn't show much... just because there are arrows pointing to things and they are listed as being scientific instruments and astronaut footpaths, doesn't mean that is what they are. it's too blurry and too far away to be sure that is what they definitely are.
The 'lunar module' that is listed could easily be a rock of some sort.
So, there really is still no actual proof.....just another photo listing what they want us to see.
Really, people have nothing better to do with their time than to wonder about this kinda shiznit? Jesus Christ almighty...
I believe we DID land on the moon, but that's an irrelevant opinion.
The fact that a whole group of people still try to disprove/disagree or vice versa just leaves me wondering wtf, is they all they have to do or live for, ya know?
Believe what you want, but as far as I'm concerned, there's more important things to question nowadays. ;)
my thoughts,,,,,,,,
once upon a time not too long ago we were able to zoom into the earth from a secret airplane built for recon. Images so sharp and so clear that the date on a dime could be seen from this plane buzzing the edge of outter space.
A lighter weight unit was installed on the tomcat and boasted about during OIF I (operation iraqi freedom 1) in 90-91.
one would think better technology would be standard issue on more modern equipment.
as for the filming getting erased on the first landing,, dont worry, Hollywood will step in to repair and digitally remaster them.
This is stupid.
Im sure there are a few mistakes made we'd rather not admit like erased films, bad pictures ect but i believe we went there. As common folk we are, we have to prove we did xyz sometimes like a new engine install unique and different. Suppose I use google earth to post up my new power plant and post it up as proof.
a good example of this would be my thread in the lounge about a little red light flashing on a module under my driver seat. No one believed me, then i posted a pic of the module. Prior to the photo, i was smoking crack, needed to check my meds, aliens were gonna come get me and the like. Suddenly after a couple clear photos, it was nothing but crickets.
I think NASA has had plenty of time and money to waste and proof positive was due to the world long ago.
If someone thinks we never went to the moon, then they are a dumbass. Period.
A. We never went to the moon.
B. The Earth is flat.
C. Pat Garret didn't kill Billy The Kid.
Now, pick the true statement... :hick:
(Yes, one of these IS true, or at the very least, more believable than the other choices...)
Sorry folks, we did go to the moon...more than once.
And, as we all know, the Earth IS round...
As far as Brushy Bill Roberts..well....THAT is a good debate ;)
The world isn't flat?Well,that changes everything.LOL.
hmmmm...... Feels flat to me....LOL
Me too.Nothing is rolling away when I set it down.LOL.
If they think the moon landing was fake, they would think the picture was fake too. Easy rebuttal.
i could care less if we ever went to the moon, but honestly, any picture can be a fake. photoshop is a powerful tool that any decent artist can make something like that look real
I know the moon landing was real. I stowed away on the space ship and went with them (yes, I know, it was two years before I was born - I used a time machine). The weather there is only marginally worse than Nova Scotia's. And astronaut farts stink.
Remember a few years ago Pepsi was going to use a laser to put their logo on the Moon? Well, the Defense Dept stopped them because they used that same laser to etch the tracks (in that photo) into the Moon surface.
Not really a good example. You mentioned it. No one knew what it was and just made a couple jokes. Don't remember any comments about crack or meds. TChicken even guessed it w/o a pic. Then you posted pics, people still didn't know what it was and still made jokes and scratched their heads. In the end, TChicken was right about what it was, at least as far as we know as no confirmation was ever made.
I believe we went, and went more than once. It was more of an exercise to prove we could, but in the end, the moon holds no real value, at least as a jump-off point as even with current rocket propulsion technology, it's still not efficient to launch from a body with gravity as it is from space. Too much fuel is wasted, and fuel takes up a lot of space.
Anyway, the technology just isn't there to go much further with manned flights. Until we can either speed up the trip, or find some way to put crews in suspended animation, it's just not feasible. Going back to the moon, just to go back to the moon is a waste.
The Space X company is very interesting to me as well.
The moon is fake.
Next stop; Mars.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/876112.stm
:rollin:a bit late for that isn't it?
Notice the jist of the article?
The distance with the current speed of space travel and the limitations of the current technology severely limit our reach into the cosmos with manned flights.
I’m assuming that the “secret airplane” you are talking about is the SR 71.
The service ceiling for the SR-71 was about 16 miles and the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is taking these images at an orbit of about 31 miles. At that height the resolution of the camera on the LRO is expected to be no more than 1 Meter.
I disagree. If the technology exists to do so, I don’t think there is anything wrong with letting the film restoring experts clean up the images to be clearer than what they were before. Especially if the actual original images aren’t available to be preserved anyway.
An for the record, I do believe that all of the Apollo missions were real.
Brent
your quoting me on the second one out of context but i could have done a better job no confussing you i guess.
'this is stupid" means , the debate about landing on the moon.
I'm not debating any of it, just pointing out we have the tools to have cleared this up long ago. Its a matter of choice for a small group of people not to do so and one would only over time start to wonder why.
no im not talking about the sr71.
I saw one of the last SR-71's fly out of England on it's final flight back to the States before it was retires.AWESOME !!!! When they hit the afterburners,it was an incredible sight.
We didn't land on the moon. But I think there is a 100mpg carburetor!
Vinnie, were you at Mildenhall? The Galaxy club ring a bell. :D
Yep,I was there.I got tossed out by a BIG bouncer,and I didn't even drink alcohol.10 minutes after we landed (I was a crew chief on the KC-135R),it was so foggy you couldn't see 10 feet in front of you.Nice place though.
It's not that astronaut farts are any worst than anyone else's. It's just that there's no getting away from them. A space suit is the ultimate personal dutch oven, and a lunar module isn't much better for your friends.
Vinnie, I'm sure parts of the earth are flat. :)
Oh yes, one more thing. The world Super Powers (are there any of those left?) and companies like SpaceX would better serve the planet if they all got together and finally built us that Space Elevator. To hell with rocket fuel. A solar array attached in space, with no atmosphere to shade the panels, would supply plenty of power to 'lift' a satellite or any other type of module, within reason, into space without burning a drop. At other times it can be used to provide power to the planet. NASA wants to use a bloody laser mounted at the base of the elevator (that they're not building) to propel the 'car' up into space. That, of course, would have to be powered by current means from the surface. In other words, power plants.
I do believe we went to the moon, but I also don't put much stock in anything NASA says anymore, after their involvement in the matters of the IPCC. How can you trust anyone who ignores their own solid proof just to support a political agenda? I can't.
Chuck, I agree that SpaceX is here just in time, as NASA is ending their current space missions, with no timeline for a return, but I think Virgin Galactic is much more interesting, and they're at least thinking out of the box in their endeavours. SpaceX is just building more rockets, not advancing anything. VG is finding a new way to get us into space at a fraction of the cost of energy.
That's certainly throwing the baby out with the bathwater. NASA is a complex entity due to it's inherent nature. It doesns't serve a vital need in the public's eye, so it makes up for it by spreading out the spending in important congressional districts. The centers are largely independent - the right hand often doesn't know what the left hand is doing.
NASA has had a timeline for the shuttle's replacement for 5 years.
Howso? SpaceshipTwo is a suborbital vessle using run of the mill technology (besides the composites).
oh man, before they banned civilians, the G-club was on Playboy's top 10 list for, uhh, meeting ladies. But back on topic, you know that poop was faked, especially as good as the computers and CGI effects were back then.
That doesn't exactly instil more confidence. We're all entitled to our opinions, and mine is that if they can lie to themselves, they certainly will lie to the public.
Well, that's good news, isn't it. Obviously news I hadn't heard yet. The last I saw was a guess that it
may take another 12-15 years before they're ready to go back up. Nothing concrete.
It's not the technology, it's the way they're using it. Also, getting the public into space helps make space flight, and other space programs, more of a vital service to the average person, which you mention as being one of NASA's reasons for having to enter the political arena. Suborbital, but it is reaching space. The idea of piggybacking an aircraft to it's maximum height before using rocket propulsion can be adapted very easily to regular space missions, as is evidenced by NASA working with VG. Finding a new way into space doesn't mean you have to reinvent the technology to do so.
PR is not one of NASA's strong suits, that's for sure. However, the current first manned flight of Ares I is scheduled for 2015. Originally meant for 2014 before delays added up.
Actually, piggybacking isn't a feasible way of getting rockets into space. When I say space, I mean orbital flight. Manned suborbital flight is of no use to NASA. If you used a 747 for air launch, you only achieve an 8% decrease in required delta-v.
Look up Spaceshiptwo. It is expected to go beyond the 100km mark. That's space. And every little bit counts.
100km is the arbitrary demarcation for space. Zooming straight up to 100.1 km and coming back down is an order of magnitude less effort than achieving orbital flight. Suborbital flights are only of use for space tourism and for quick military strikes. Suborbital manned flight lost its scientific value about 50 years ago.
And how much effort do you think it would take to go from that to full orbit? Not a hell of a lot. And they're target is 110km. Still, they're at least doing something new with their efforts, not just building more of the same.
(http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyimages/1272.jpg)
actually, i can see them using rockets as nasa concluded was the most economical way to get out of here. Apparently, they want to trial all options but i can see it coming full circle.,,unless they figure out how to make a couple magnets pop them off the planet.
daym,,
what season is the northern part of earth in that pic?
winter or summer ,, it prob doesnt matter cause we're all dead.
The internets ate my post, but basically...
There is a massive difference between a suborbital zoom to 110km and getting to orbit. You'll need >10 times the mass and far more complexity. I did advance propulsion technology assesment and architechture buttstuffysis for 5 years under contract for NASA. I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about.
Oh SNAP! It's on. ;)
A little too much LDS, Scott, decrease the dosage next time. :rollin:
none of us kno for sure if we did or didnt,,unless u work for nasa or u were on the shuttle u will never kno if i had my guess,,it doesnt matter to me either way,if we did good for us if we didnt oh well
10x? Are you kidding me? That's nuts (not you). Doing some searching, I see now that full orbit has less to do with altitude (well, it does, but you get what I mean) than it does with speed. Even still, you can achieve orbit at this altitude, is that 10x what is necessary just to get to a speed that can maintain or break orbit? That sounds pretty extreme, since terminal velocity isn't an issue in space. Wikipedia says 7.8km/s (a pretty good clip) @100km. Then again, they're saying an object experiences atmospheric drag at 200km, so perhaps terminal velocity is an issue. Yeah, I'm in way over my head. What's messing me up now is that I always thought 'space' was beyond the boundary of our atmosphere.
I still commend VG for doing something new, rather than simply building the same rockets we've been using for over half a century. And I still would like to see a serious effort made in planning a space elevator. It can't be a lost cause if so many different organisations, including NASA, are trying to figure out how to do it, even to the point of competing in an X Prize competition.