It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Hoax

page: 1
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
There are some alarming questions that come up with the current Discovery problems.

(1) How could we send a man to the moon in 1969 and yet in 2005 we can bearely send men 200 miles above the earth without disasters considering the current vastly improved technology that we have ?

(2) They send satellites up into an alledged 22,300 mile orbit on a regular basis and they seem to have no problem with tiles falling off. Why not use the same materials that the rockets that take the satellites into orbit are covered with ?

(3) Why has America or any other Country attempted to go to the Moon since 1969, if it was so important then, why is it no longer important ?

(4) With all the problems we have down here on the earth that we are not able to solve, why waste billions of dollars on a space program riddled with problems that the NASA techs are unable to correct ?

Something is wrong here, the facts don't add up, or is NASA going backwards ?

[edit on 29-7-2005 by Lastday Prophet]
*fixed caps lock title*

[edit on 1-8-2005 by dbates]




posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 01:59 PM
link   
(1) Space travel is not easy and the risk of death is always present. For example Apollo-1, Apollo 13, and Challenger. I'm sure there are a few more shuttle failures to mention here. Space travel is tough. Thats why rocket scientists have to be so smart.

(2) Satellites are launched by all nations. The Russians were the first to do it.
Launching a satellite is totally different than launching a shuttle. A satellite is launched on a launch vehicle. Shuttles need those tiles to return to Earth safely.
'alleged'? we use these satellites all the time in weather and mapping. What evidence is there that they are not where 'they' say they are?

(3)It was important in 69 because we have never been there and the US was competing with Russia. It was called the space race. What would we need to go to the moon for now? There is nothing to see.

(4) I agree. NASA money could be well spent on feeding the hungry and other important earthly matters.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 02:01 PM
link   
It doesnt make much sense, but does all add up. The satellites have no problem because they dont have to come back down, they are either self maintained or by astronauts.

Your jumping to conclusions as well, we have had one major disaster, that was Columbia, if Discovery is found to have any crippling problems, the Russians are always there to help if it gets ugly.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lastday Prophet
There are some alarming questions that come up with the current Discovery problems.

(1) How could we send a man to the moon in 1969 and yet in 2005 we can bearely send men 200 miles above the earth without disasters considering the current vastly improved technology that we have ?

(2) They send satellites up into an alledged 22,300 mile orbit on a regular basis and they seem to have no problem with tiles falling off. Why not use the same materials that the rockets that take the satellites into orbit are covered with ?

(3) Why has America or any other Country attempted to go to the Moon since 1969, if it was so important then, why is it no longer important ?

(4) With all the problems we have down here on the earth that we are not able to solve, why waste billions of dollars on a space program riddled with problems that the NASA techs are unable to correct ?

Something is wrong here, the facts don't add up, or is NASA going backwards ?

[edit on 29-7-2005 by Lastday Prophet]




what exactly is being hoaxed ?????????? the shuttles are old now, and reusable vehicles. Apollo 11 was a one shot deal. The moon mission was more political than scientific. Are you sure we haven't been back ? you may want to check on that

nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The Apollo program was designed to land humans on the Moon and bring them safely back to Earth. Six of the missions (Apollos 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17) achieved this goal



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Okay, I am an employee of NASA (work at KSC in the electrostatics and surface physics lab), so here's my answers:

(1) We could send a man to the moon, there's just no purpose to it right now. It's beating a dead horse. The foam problem is continuing, keep in mind, disasters have happened in the past...

(2) Read Umbrax's statement.

(3) We have gone to the moon a few times after the original. We stopped progress because of politics, and because robotic missions were more efficient.

(4) NASA's budgets are 5% of what the military defense budget is. 5%. How much technology do we get out of that? No a whole lot that makes my life better. Do you have any idea how much useful technology has come out of the space program that has impacted your day to day life? A whole lot. I really hate when people ask such a foolish question as this one, it irritates me. Why are we throwing billions and billions of dollars at other causes that are not progressing us? NASA = progress for mankind. Support it, it's the only thing making us peons' lives better.

Let me make it clear, the space shuttles we use now should've been gone a very long time ago. Unfortunately, we had a string of very bad presidents, in my opinion, who didn't give a damn about the space program. We finally have a president with a vision, and has given NASA a kick in the ass.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by T_Jesus(4) NASA's budgets are 5% of what the military defense budget is. 5%. How much technology do we get out of that? No a whole lot that makes my life better. Do you have any idea how much useful technology has come out of the space program that has impacted your day to day life? A whole lot. I really hate when people ask such a foolish question as this one, it irritates me. Why are we throwing billions and billions of dollars at other causes that are not progressing us? NASA = progress for mankind. Support it, it's the only thing making us peons' lives better.


I agree. Living in an areospace/space community, it annoys me to hear people say things like 'Why not scrap NASA completly and feed people with the money.' People think my neighbors' work doesn't go to advance technologies for everyday use, such as in areoplanes are nutcases. NASA would have been scraped back when it was NACA if we knew nothing productive or worthwhile to the economy would come out of it.

People also don't realize how many people make there livelyhoods off of NASA, hundreds of thousands.

I do think that there is a 80% chance we will see the end of manned flight from the time they retire the shuttle in a few years to maybe 30-40 years until it is decided by Langley to stop cutting funding on other shuttle projects.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Stop bashing NASA with your stupid conspiracies, if you people keep giving NASA a bad image the public would lose intrest and this will spell the end for them. Is that what your goal is? To bring NASA down because you don't like what they have to say about your Cydonia and other garbage. That's what you people are doing, without NASA we won't be seeing space for a long time, and you bet the private sector wont see space either. Space travel may be the thing that keeps humanity together, that's why we have an INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION, bringing down NASA would be a crime. There is NO HOAX!!! Do some research on the people that are making these conspiracies up, most of them haven't even got out of collage!! They don't have a clue on how hard engineering and space travel is.

P.S. - I agree with Frosty, T_Jesus, and Umbrax's statments!



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zanzibar
It doesnt make much sense, but does all add up. The satellites have no problem because they dont have to come back down, they are either self maintained or by astronauts.

Your jumping to conclusions as well, we have had one major disaster, that was Columbia, if Discovery is found to have any crippling problems, the Russians are always there to help if it gets ugly.


How do you figure one accident. Apollo 1 - Challenger - Columbia
Please read history before commenting like you know whats going on

[edit on 29-7-2005 by SOCIAL_TAKEOVER]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:37 PM
link   
Im sorry, I forgot about the other two, my bad. I really should do some more thinking, Im losing it lately.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   
Not doubting you but could you give us a few examples.

Please don't use communications as an example.

I personally think the money wasted in NASA could be much better used to impact the lives of many daily.



Originally posted by T_Jesus
Okay, I am an employee of NASA (work at KSC in the electrostatics and surface physics lab), so here's my answers:

Do you have any idea how much useful technology has come out of the space program that has impacted your day to day life? A whole lot.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:04 PM
link   
I actually owned this book....

An excerpt (because I'm such a good little geek!):

"They ranged from athletic footwear to water filters to sewage purification using hyacinths; from special swimsuits that resist drag to keyboards for the handicapped to a g-force protection bed; from dichroic glass used in jewelry to ergonomic seats; from urban planning to body scanning diagnostics. X-ray technology developed for the lunar probes and mars landers are now used in the hospitals for diagnostic imaging, and ocular scanners are a direct by-product of lunar imaging systems. Infrared satellites are also being used remotely for archaeological purposes on Earth."

Book link

I'm usually the first to yell "Hey, stop wasting money on outer space and spend it where it's needed!". But I have to pipe up and give 'em credit where credit is due, you know?



Edit: another link, this time from NASA - and before we jump and say "But it's not objective, it's biased!!" you're right. It's biased. But, it does contain information that can easily be verified independently, and thus stands up to investigation.

NASA stuff in our lives

[edit on 29-7-2005 by Tinkleflower]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   
i doubt its a hoax the moon landing and stuff, as for the shuttle it is OLD and im sure they are due for retirement? dont USA have some new space craft that can be used like planes but can carry double the pay load the shuttle could and they use a new type of engine?



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 07:06 PM
link   
Thanks Tinkleflower but I do fine without any of the items mentioned.

And most of these items could have been invented without spending BILLIONS to launch a craft into space.

Now If NASA had come back with an alternate clean or free energy then I would say well worth it but to me it's all just a waste.


Originally posted by Tinkleflower

"They ranged from athletic footwear to water filters to sewage purification using hyacinths; from special swimsuits that resist drag to keyboards for the handicapped to a g-force protection bed; from dichroic glass used in jewelry to ergonomic seats; from urban planning to body scanning diagnostics. X-ray technology developed for the lunar probes and mars landers are now used in the hospitals for diagnostic imaging, and ocular scanners are a direct by-product of lunar imaging systems. Infrared satellites are also being used remotely for archaeological purposes on Earth."




posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom
Thanks Tinkleflower but I do fine without any of the items mentioned.

And most of these items could have been invented without spending BILLIONS to launch a craft into space.

Now If NASA had come back with an alternate clean or free energy then I would say well worth it but to me it's all just a waste.



And that's great


The point being....these items might never have seen the light without NASA, and there are literally millions of people who've had their lives saved perhaps, by just one of those (the x-ray).

Don't misunderstand my pov here - I can think of a few hundred thousand ways of spending a billion dollars, none of which involve sending craft into our wee atmosphere....but again, I can also see that NASA isn't only about outer space; there've been many technological advances thanks to NASA which have better served humanity as a whole which have had very little to do with sending off spacecraft into the great unknown....



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   
The X-ray. You mean to tell me that Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen worked for NASA back in 1895. Hmmmmm... j/k

My point is these discoveries were known to be ground breaking and would have also advanced without NASA.





Originally posted by Tinkleflower
And that's great


there are literally millions of people who've had their lives saved perhaps, by just one of those (the x-ray).





posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom
My point is these discoveries were known to be ground breaking and would have also advanced without NASA.


Oh without a doubt!

But they did - and we're all the better for 'em.

But yes, I do understand what you're getting at - and for the most part, I agree with you.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 08:09 PM
link   
sigh, argue with the Military Industrialists about funding reduction, NASA needs whatever breadcrumbs it gets tossed. For those of you foolish enough to think that we would be anywhere as advanced as we are today is fooling themselves.

www.google.ca...:en-US
fficial


Now If NASA had come back with an alternate clean or free energy then I would say well worth it but to me it's all just a waste.


Uhh Solar Panels
they wouldn't be nearly as efficient as they are now without NASA involvement. And there ain't no such thing as a free lunch(= No such thing as "free energy")



Please don't use communications as an example.


Why? We wouldn't even be having this conversation without the efforts of you guessed it NASA(and a few other orginisations)



I personally think the money wasted in NASA could be much better used to impact the lives of many daily.

Again space exploration is not a waste of money. Spending money on aging nuclear arsenals is a larger waste of money in my opinion.

Basically the only reason to eliminate NASA would be to prop up the Military Budget. I'm not foolish enough to believe that the money would actually go anywhere more worthwhile then Space Exploration so keep it where it is and INCREASE funding at the expense of Military Funding.

Another reason to support NASA is their continued colonization strategy. If we figure out how to setup a self-sufficient Moon or Mars base, think of the ramifications it will have on earth!



Thanks Tinkleflower but I do fine without any of the items mentioned.


You use smoke detectors don't you? Thank Spacelab for that innovation.

Granted allot of the technology invented by NASA would most likely be invented anyway, it wouldn't come to market as quick if it was done privately. We have been throwing Hundreds of Billions of dollars(collectively as a species) at social programs meant to improve the situation of Humanity. It doesn't seem to be working does it, what makes you think another few Billion Dollars is gonna make a larger impact? It isn't as NASA's budget is really a drop in the Bucket nowadays.

[edit on 29-7-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 29-7-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Total manned Apollo missions: 10
Total catastrophic (death) failures: 1
Partial Failures - no deaths: 1
Failure Ratio: 1:10
Success: 80%

Total STS (space shuttle) missions: 114
Total catastrophic failures: 2
Partial Failures - no deaths: 0
Failure Ratio: 1:57
Success: 98.3%

Now, you tell me, how is the STS program a failure? If the Apollo missions had continued on the same track over 110 launches there would have been 11 catastrophic failures. I think all in all the STS program has been very successful considering the tremendous reduction in NASA's budget following 1972 and the end of the Apollo program.

How many STS missions were worthy of note and accomplished significant advances in science? (not counting missions which proved technolgies for the assembly of the Space Station, and the subsequent 14 missions which assembled the space station)

9 9 Columbia 11-28-83 First Spacelab Mission (SL-1)
17 51-B Challenger 04-29-85 Spacelab-03
19 51-F Challenger 07-29-85 Spacelab-02
22 61-A Challenger 10-30-85 1st German Spacelab mission (D1)
24 61-C Columbia 01-12-86 Microgravity Sceince Lab.-2
29 30 Atlantis 05-04-89 Venus probe Magellan
31 34 Atlantis 10-18-89 Jupiter probe Galileo
35 31 Discovery 05-30-90 Hubble Space Telescope
36 41 Discovery 10-06-90 Solar Polar probe Ulysses
39 37 Atlantis 04-05-91 Gamma Ray Observatory
40 39 Discovery 04-28-91 Infrared Background Signature Survey
45 42 Discovery 01-22-92 International Microgravity Laboratory IML-1
46 45 Atlantis 03-24-92 1st Earth Atmosphere mission ATLAS-1
48 50 Columbia 06-25-92 US Microgravity Laboratory USML-1
55 55 Columbia 04-26-93 Spacelab-D2
59 61 Endeavour 12-02-93 Hubble Space Telescope, Repair &1st Servicing Mission-01
60 60 Discovery 02-03-94 SpaceHab-02, 1st Russian Cosmonaut, Wake Shield
62 59 Endeavour 04-09-94 Space Radar Lab.-01
63 65 Columbia 07-08-94 International Microgravity Lab.-02
67 63 Discovery 02-03-95 SpaceHab 3; Spartan; Mir rendezvous
69 71 Atlantis 06-27-95 1st Mir Docking, 100th U.S. Human Spaceflight, SL-M
72 73 Columbia 10-20-95 U.S. Microgravity Laboratory-2 (USML-2)
78 78 Columbia 06-20-96 17 day life & microgravity spacelab mission, SAREX-II
80 80 Columbia 11-19-96 Wake Shield 3; ORFEUS-SPAS
82 82 Discovery 02-11-97 Hubble telescope servicing mission 2
83 83 Columbia 04-04-97 Materials Science Laboratory 1 - fuel cell problem
85 94 Columbia 07-01-97 Materials Science Laboratory 1, reflight
86 85 Discovery 08-07-97 CRISTA-SPAS 02; Japanese. manipulator (MFD)
90 90 Columbia 04-17-98 Neurolab
95 93 Columbia 07-23-99 Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility AXAF-1
96 103 Discovery 12-19-99 Hubble telescope servicing flight 3
97 99 Endeavour 02-11-00 Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission
108 109 Columbia 03-01-02 Hubble Servicing Mission 3B


Yup, that space shuttle was worthless...


[edit on 30-7-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lanotom
Thanks Tinkleflower but I do fine without any of the items mentioned.

And most of these items could have been invented without spending BILLIONS to launch a craft into space.

Now If NASA had come back with an alternate clean or free energy then I would say well worth it but to me it's all just a waste.


This is either a joke of a statement or pure ignorance. "Most of the stuff would have been invented anyway"? Yeah, maybe 20-50 years down the road.

Without NASA and NACA achievements we would have been using piston engines well into the 1970's, would not have any sort of cell phone use, jaws of life, weather forcasting, a lack of certain medical devices, and worst of all the USSR right now could be sending over ICBMS packed with tritium if it weren't for NASA.

Sorry, but the private sector needs NASA. I've heard people say the gov should stay out of the private sector with NASA, but sorry to say, there would be no private sector if it weren't for NASA.

EDIT: NASA currently has a budget set for 2006 at around $18.5 billion. For NASA, this is not enough and should be more. Instead the need to handout wellfare to people who purposely minipulate the system is more worthwhile, USAF's current plan (again) on teleportation is more important, Hillary Clinton's proposal for a $90 million study into the game GTA: San Andreas is sounds clearly more important, the need to maintain a nuclear arsenal capable of blowing the world up several times is much more beneficial, etc...

NASA and local politicians (Delay) here in Houston are fighting exhaustively to keep Elington Air National Guard Base running. This would put a real damper on avionics research and would open up Houston skies to possible terrorist hijackings if shut down.

[edit on 29-7-2005 by Frosty]



posted on Jul, 30 2005 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Folks, keep it civil, please?

And LastDay, if you're going to proclaim "hoax" then you need to state what the "hoax" is and back it up with documentation. Lots of documentation... not just websites making claims, but some hard numbers and data.

(note: when dealing with historical events, it really IS a good idea to doublecheck your dates and facts on trustworthy sites!)

[edit on 30-7-2005 by Byrd]




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join