How NASA plans to get back to the moon.

[Darth InSidious]

Dravis, there is a word for that kind of gibberish - smokescreen

 

As for their interest in international co-operation and their supposed independance, if it exists, why is every NASA project US-dominated, US-funded and US-controlled, with almost exclusively American astronauts? Why does ESA exist? Answer: The US Government. NASA exists because Kennedy needed to play "Anything you can do I can do better" with the USSR.

 

As for NASA's missions, frankly, they're not exactly brilliant - there's very little that's innovative, and it's all ridiculously expensive.

 

If NASA put a station on the moon it would be seen as identical to the US government putting a station on the moon in international eyes.

 

edith: Oh, and Dravis, ne scribe Latinum in signatus - stultus est

[Samuel Dravis]

Dravis, there is a word for that kind of gibberish - smokescreen

If there's something incorrect about what I posted, do inform me.

 

As for their interest in international co-operation and their supposed independance

I didn't say they were independent. Talk to Revan about that.

 

if it exists, why is every NASA project US-dominated,

AFAIK, other countries can do what they like. They don't need specific approval by the US to conduct their scientific activities.

 

US-funded

It might not get done otherwise. Besides, NASA's budget comes from the US government. I can't imagine that they'd spend their time doing what the people who make the decisions in the US thought was most important.

 

and US-controlled,

Seriously, why should NASA relinquish control of it's missions and objectives to, say, a UN council? Because it makes you feel better? NASA already releases the technology they use to the public. Other countries are free to do what they will with it within the boundaries of law. No one's stopping them.

 

with almost exclusively American astronauts?

We fund it, no doubt we get to decide who gets on our spaceships. Simply because something is for research does not mean everyone else is entitled to use it.

 

Why does ESA exist?

Because Europe wants to do something on their own. And, surprise! They can. Their budget is smaller (3.6bn USD to NASA's 16bn USD), but they can do it. If Europe wants a better space program, they can pay for it just like us.

 

Answer: The US Government. NASA exists because Kennedy needed to play "Anything you can do I can do better" with the USSR.

I agree with that, sort of. Space is very important even without the Cold War. We'd have been doing the same thing, probably just later than we did.

 

As for NASA's missions, frankly, they're not exactly brilliant - there's very little that's innovative, and it's all ridiculously expensive.

I'm not going to argue there. It's very disappointing. Personally I'd rather they do a lot more of unmanned probes for a few million dollars each than do a manned mission that doesn't discover half as much...

 

If NASA put a station on the moon it would be seen as identical to the US government putting a station on the moon in international eyes.

You'd think so, wouldn't you? I agree.

 

edit: Oh, and Dravis, ne scribe Latinum in signatus - stultus est

De gustibus non est disputandum.

[gandiva]

I don't think NASA ever got to the moon and I think that we were all told a HUGE lie. The American Scientists were partifularly jealous of the Russian Scientists because they were more smart and advanced so they decided to pretend they went to the moon. American Propaganda, everybody!

 

It was a set up. It was filmed in a film studio. I think they even fooled the president. It's pretty strange Neil Armstrong (I think) and the other guys immediately quit their NASA jobs after the moon trip. They felt SO SO SO SO SO guilty for lying to everyone, I guess. And did you see Neil practically crying in the 50th anniversity celebration for the trip to the moon?

 

Anyway, I watched this movie that had so much evidence that NASA never went to the moon.

[Hallucination]

^^Right.... So the moon landing was fake because they had the flag moving? How could the get the cameras up there without someone being there first? IT WAS A RE-ENACTMENT! Besides, does it really matter that someone got to the moon first?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I don't think NASA ever got to the moon and I think that we were all told a HUGE lie. The American Scientists were partifularly jealous of the Russian Scientists because they were more smart and advanced so they decided to pretend they went to the moon. American Propaganda, everybody!

 

It was a set up. It was filmed in a film studio. I think they even fooled the president. It's pretty strange Neil Armstrong (I think) and the other guys immediately quit their NASA jobs after the moon trip. They felt SO SO SO SO SO guilty for lying to everyone, I guess. And did you see Neil practically crying in the 50th anniversity celebration for the trip to the moon?

 

Anyway, I watched this movie that had so much evidence that NASA never went to the moon.

Or perhaps they quit because not just anyone can go to the moon. You'd have to be in prime physical condition, which they couldn't have been after their muscle deterioration from their time in space. By the way, we don't have propaganda for our government, the only propaganda we have here is for retail products

[RevanA4]

I don't think NASA ever got to the moon and I think that we were all told a HUGE lie. The American Scientists were partifularly jealous of the Russian Scientists because they were more smart and advanced so they decided to pretend they went to the moon. American Propaganda, everybody!

 

It was a set up. It was filmed in a film studio. I think they even fooled the president. It's pretty strange Neil Armstrong (I think) and the other guys immediately quit their NASA jobs after the moon trip. They felt SO SO SO SO SO guilty for lying to everyone, I guess. And did you see Neil practically crying in the 50th anniversity celebration for the trip to the moon?

 

Anyway, I watched this movie that had so much evidence that NASA never went to the moon.

 

 

first off read this second off I don't think you fully understand what it would mean to NASA if they faked the the 6 moon landings

 

first NASA would gain nothing by faking them (don't dare say they would have gained something)

 

the reason they wouldn't have gained anything is NASA is part of the scientific community where reputation is everything. If proof came out that NASA faked the moon landings it would have dealt them a blow much worse than anything you could imagine

 

they would loss everything.

[Darth InSidious]

I don't think NASA ever got to the moon and I think that we were all told a HUGE lie. The American Scientists were partifularly jealous of the Russian Scientists because they were more smart and advanced so they decided to pretend they went to the moon. American Propaganda, everybody!

 

It was a set up. It was filmed in a film studio. I think they even fooled the president. It's pretty strange Neil Armstrong (I think) and the other guys immediately quit their NASA jobs after the moon trip. They felt SO SO SO SO SO guilty for lying to everyone, I guess. And did you see Neil practically crying in the 50th anniversity celebration for the trip to the moon?

 

Anyway, I watched this movie that had so much evidence that NASA never went to the moon.

 

...And I suppose the Royal Family of Great Britain are all 20-foot-long lizards hell-bent on the destruction of the human race, and that the Catholic Church is in fact trying to manipulate people for ****s and giggles?

 

Get some perspective. Or start living in a closer reality. Yours is too whacked out.

[RC-1162]

what about the armalcolite and other minerals discovered on the moon and brought for scientific analysis?

get a life, man!

[Darth InSidious]

Obviously the faked them too, by painting rocks in different colours, and umm...errr...faking the microscope readings! Yeah!

[stoffe]

I don't think NASA ever got to the moon and I think that we were all told a HUGE lie. The American Scientists were partifularly jealous of the Russian Scientists because (snip)

 

I suppose they manipulated every single telescope on the planet that was following the event as well? That achievement would probably rank higher than the moon landings themselves.

 

Conspiracy theories (and the cold war game of comparing appendage sizes) aside, there's ample evidence visible on the moon's surface itself that it has been visited.

[RedHawke]

there's ample evidence visible on the moon's surface itself that it has been visited.

Rocket burn marks and a ton of garbage left behind!

 

[RevanA4]

I suppose they manipulated every single telescope on the planet that was following the event as well? That achievement would probably rank higher than the moon landings themselves.

 

Conspiracy theories (and the cold war game of comparing appendage sizes) aside, there's ample evidence visible on the moon's surface itself that it has been visited.

 

 

not to mention there were six seperate landings.

 

you can't fake all of them its not possible

 

even with the tech at the time it still could have done the job

[gandiva]

hey, it's just a conspiracy. Anyway, there is more to it than that. The movie I watched had plenty of evidence and if you googled about it, I'm pretty sure you'd find some interesting things. I mean, how can there be lights on the moon? It also doesn't make sense that so many spaceshuttles blasted to pieces if they left the Earth in the last 5 years? And somehow, it was successful to 40 years ago???

[RevanA4]

hey, it's just a conspiracy. Anyway, there is more to it than that. The movie I watched had plenty of evidence and if you googled about it, I'm pretty sure you'd find some interesting things. I mean, how can there be lights on the moon? It also doesn't make sense that so many spaceshuttles blasted to pieces if they left the Earth in the last 5 years? And somehow, it was successful to 40 years ago???

 

so your saying both the gemini and apollo missions were faked

 

yeah right >_> that's impossible

 

WTF do you take us for I mean come on

 

I can give argument after argument about how they really happened

 

oh and they landed on the light side of the moon they SUN actually gets light to it

 

plz before you try and disprove something like SIX moon landings you FIRST have to THINK.

 

how the heck do you thing lights and cameras got there >_> oh lemme see here *thinks* oh maybe they took them with them.

 

um oh yeah and only ONE shuttle blew up in the last five years and that was an insulation failer.

[Hallucination]

^Revan, the videos are fake, the landings aren't. How did they get the cameras up there without sending anyone first? It had to be a re-enactment.

[RevanA4]

^Revan, the videos are fake, the landings aren't. How did they get the cameras up there without sending anyone first? It had to be a re-enactment.

 

 

no they aren't they had more than enough room to take the cameras with them.

 

and haven't you heard of hand held camera's yeah they existed then

[El Sitherino]

I think Hallucination was being facetious.

[Hallucination]

no they aren't they had more than enough room to take the cameras with them.

 

and haven't you heard of hand held camera's yeah they existed then

So when Armstrong was leaving the thingy, and taking the first steps a human has ever taken on the moon, the U.S. goverment already had a guy up there standing outside the thingy, filming the whole event? BTW, I'm more on you're side than I am on his, I'm stilling saying the landing happened.

P.S. Never underestimate the power of the italics.

[RevanA4]

So when Armstrong was leaving the thingy, and taking the first steps a human has ever taken on the moon, the U.S. goverment already had a guy up there standing outside the thingy, filming the whole event? BTW, I'm more on you're side than I am on his, I'm stilling saying the landing happened.

P.S. Never underestimate the power of the italics.

 

lolz

 

there were more than one person in that space craft

 

Armstrong was the first to step foot on the moon but he wasn't alone on that mission

 

plz note: I see what you are doing I'm just proving the point that they are real

[ET Warrior]

So when Armstrong was leaving the thingy, and taking the first steps a human has ever taken on the moon,

 

Enjoi

[RevanA4]

Enjoi

 

blast I forgot that little detail

 

yeah that works too XD

[Darth InSidious]

hey, it's just a conspiracy. Anyway, there is more to it than that. The movie I watched had plenty of evidence and if you googled about it, I'm pretty sure you'd find some interesting things. I mean, how can there be lights on the moon? It also doesn't make sense that so many spaceshuttles blasted to pieces if they left the Earth in the last 5 years? And somehow, it was successful to 40 years ago???

 

Concorde worked fine when it first launched, and it crashed only a few years ago. I wonder how that works...Hmm...Of course! It must have been a fake aeroplane. Naturally.

 

We couldn't raise the pyramids in 20 years nowadays, so they must be fake too!

 

You couldn't rule something as big as the Roman Empire nowadays, so it must be a fake!

 

That's the most specious argument since "I have eyebrows therefore I am".

[gandiva]

I don't think there is any need to be sarcastic. the argument that i've given didn't have enough ideas to support it. I can't list them all down - there's too many. Perhaps you can visit this site: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

 

Edit: oh please, Revan, don't be so vain and act like YOU thought before disapproving what I've said.

 

J. F. Kennedy announced in 1962 that Man would travel to the Moon by the end of the decade. Just 7 years later Man allegedly did just that. But more than 35 years later in a World that is vastly technologically superior to the 1960's, why would it take over twice as long to do the same thing today?

[RevanA4]

I don't think there is any need to be sarcastic. the argument that i've given didn't have enough ideas to support it. I can't list them all down - there's too many. Perhaps you can visit this site: http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html

 

sorry but have of their reasons are laughable at best

 

In 1969 computer chips had not been invented. The maximum computer memory was 256k, and this was housed in a large air conditioned building. In 2002 a top of the range computer requires at least 64 Mb of memory to run a simulated Moon landing, and that does not include the memory required to take off again once landed. The alleged computer on board Apollo 11 had 32k of memory. That's the equivalent of a simple calculator.

 

more than enough power to make course calculations

 

30) In the year 2005 NASA does not have the technology to land any man, or woman on the Moon, and return them safely to Earth.

 

WRONG they do too have the tech but the space shuttle wasn't designed to land on the moon

 

27) CNN issued the following report, "The radiation belts surrounding Earth may be more dangerous for astronauts than previously believed (like when they supposedly went through them thirty years ago to reach the Moon.) The phenomenon known as the 'Van Allen Belts' can spawn (newly discovered) 'Killer Electrons' that can dramatically affect the astronauts' health."

 

a thin layer of lead is all that is needed when passing thought these belts plus they last like 5 seconds each >_>

 

25) In 1998, the Space Shuttle flew to one of its highest altitudes ever, three hundred and fifty miles, hundreds of miles below merely the beginning of the Van Allen Radiation Belts. Inside of their shielding, superior to that which the Apollo astronauts possessed, the shuttle astronauts reported being able to "see" the radiation with their eyes closed penetrating their shielding as well as the retinas of their closed eyes. For a dental x-ray on Earth which lasts 1/100th of a second we wear a 1/4 inch lead vest. Imagine what it would be like to endure several hours of radiation that you can see with your eyes closed from hundreds of miles away with 1/8 of an inch of aluminium shielding!

 

I've worked around X-rays for 4 months with out any adverse affects so thier point is?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

You should stop posting. You're embarassing yourself. Especially by posting a link to a website with the acronym 'UFO' in the URL. Also, please take a physics course or something, you'll find that it's possible to go to the moon. Also, what the hell do you mean by "why would it take twice as long to do the same thing today?", Bush announced we'd go to the moon again just a few years ago--seven times two is 14! Also, we took a lot longer to get to the moon than 7 years, in 1962 we had already been trying to get there for at least 5 years, which means by your logic means we've been trying to go to the moon for 24 years! Also, there can be light on the moon because it reflects light from the sun! Amazingly enough, Earth isn't the only thing that can be lit up! Ever heard of the daytime, you know, the hours between sunrise and sunset? Also, what shuttles are you talking about? We've launched plenty of sucessful missions into space without them being "blasted to pieces". By the way, most (if not all) of the facts on that link are wrong. For example, the moon does not have 1/6 the gravity of Earth, it has 1/3 the gravity, also the flag wasn't "blowing in the wind", the flag was moving because the pole it was attached to was moving.